Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kaushalya Devi Aged 62 Years Wife ... vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 10 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
B.A No. 299/2022
CrlM No. 1449/2022
Reserved on:- 21.12.2022
Pronounced on:- 10.02.2023
1. Kaushalya Devi aged 62 years wife of Sh. ....Petitioner(s)
Subash Chander R/o Kori Ladda, Tehsil
Mongri, District Udhampur (A/P lodged
in District Jail Udhampur);
2. Nisha Devi Aged 21 years D/o Sh. Subash
Chander, R/o Kori Ladda, Tehsil Mongri,
District Udhampur (A/P lodged in District
Jail Udhampur);
3. Rafia Devi, Aged 25 years wife of Balwan
Chand R/o Kori Ladda, Tehsil Mongri,
District Udhampur (A/P lodged in District
Jail Udhampur);
Through :- Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Mir, Advocate.
Mr. Abdul Rauf Lone, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir ....Respondent(s)
Through Incharge/SHO Police Station
Panchari, District Udhampur;
2. Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur
7.
Through:- Mr. Sumit Bhatia, GA
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
O R D E R
10-- 02 -- 2023
1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the „Code‟) for grant
of bails in their favour in case FIR No. 31/2019 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302, 458, 147 & 201 RPC registered with Police
Station Panchari, (District Udhampur). It is averred, that the petitioners are the
permanent residents of UT of J&K and are entitled to the protection of their
fundamental rights including right to liberty and freedom; that the petitioners
have been wrongly and falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No. 31/2019
u/ss 302, 458, 147 & 201 RPC for the allegations that they are involved in
murder of one Bodh Raj and soon thereafter registration of FIR all the
petitioners herein have been arrested and are facing incarceration in jail; that
on completion of investigation in the aforesaid FIR a criminal challan/charge
sheet has been presented against the accused persons including the petitioners
in the year 2019 which is pending disposal/trial before the Court of Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur wherein as many as 31 prosecution
witnesses have been projected out of which only 14 witnesses have been
examined so far and none of the witnesses have stated incriminating against the
petitioners while the remaining unexamined witnesses are official witnesses;
that since the presentation of challan, as many as 66 hearings so far have taken
place and whole of the prosecution witnesses have not been examined till date;
petitioners are females and are in custody for the last more than 03 years,
petitioners 1 and 2 filed a joint application for grant of bail before the Court of
Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur, after inviting objections and hearing
the parties the trial court rejected their bail application vide order dated
23.10.2021 on such grounds and for such reasons which are not legally tenable;
that the District Level Service Authority in reference to the decision taken in
the Under-Trial Review Committee (UTRC) meeting held on 02.08.2022
issued notice dated 02.08.2022 to various Advocates requiring them to file bail
application before the concerned Courts in accordance with the NALSA SOP
Release-UTRC @ 75 Campaign launched by Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of
India on 16th July 2022, pursuant to which names of the petitioners have been
indicated at Serial Nos. 3 to 5 in the notice dated 02.08.2022; that all the
petitioners filed three separate bail applications before the Court of Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur for grant of bail on various grounds
primarily on the ground that they are females and as per different judgments
passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court of India as also by the writ Courts, they are
entitled to be enlarged on bail; that the Trial Court clubbed all the three bail
applications and vide order dated 10.08.2022 rejected the bails of the
petitioners on the grounds and reasons which are not legally sustainable; that
the Trial Court while rejecting the bail application of petitioner No. 1 has failed
to appreciate that she is in advance stage of her life being 62 years of age and
is suffering from comorbidities; that similarly, the trial court also did not
consider the bail application of petitioner No. 2 that she is of marriageable age
and has already slipped in depression, which is a disease that devastates a
person without any physical ailment; that the bail application of petitioner No.
3 too has not been considered by the trial court that she is a young married lady
and is suffering from various health disorders; that there is remotest possibility
of conviction of the petitioners in the aforesaid criminal challan as there is no
evidence much less a cogent evidence which warrants involvement in the
aforesaid criminal case, however, in the event the petitioners are held guilty at
the end of the trial, they being females would be readily available to serve the
sentence; that it is the specific and categoric case of the petitioners before the
trial court that no purpose would be served if the petitioners remain in
continuous detention as it is settled position of law, that every accused is
innocent till held guilty and being women, they have been categorized for an
inbuilt concession of bail as provided under Section 437 of Cr.P.C, wherein,
under three circumstances as depicted in the proviso, (i) a person below 16
years of age, (ii) a woman and (iii) a person who is sick or infirm can be
granted bail in non-bailable offences; that the petitioners are females and
therefore provision of Section 437 proviso fully applies to them and they can
be enlarged on bails; that the basic rule is that "bail is rule" and "Jail is
exception", the detention of the petitioners pending completion of trial could
cause great hardship to them and would be quite contrary to concept of
personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India that any person should
not punished unless held guilty; that the petitioners have no criminal history as
they have never been involved in any criminal case, they undertake to abide by
all terms and conditions imposed by the Court if granted bails, and moreso they
will not jump over the bail, prayer has been made for grant of bail.
2. Respondents per contra, by filing objections have opposed the bail on the
grounds, that the offences indicted against the petitioners under Sections 302/
458/147/210 RPC are grave and heinous, chargesheet has been produced
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Udhampur on 31.07.2019, there
is every possibility that if enlarged on bail petitioners/accused would tamper
the prosecution evidence and try to influence the witnesses, the offences
indicted against the accused are against the interest of general public and
society, therefore, petitioners do not deserve any concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments of bail
application, have sought their enlargement on bails by projecting arguments,
that for the last more than three (3) years petitioners along with co-accused are
languishing in jail for their no fault, out of total 31 prosecution witnesses 15
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the eye witnesses
examined so far have not put-forth any incriminating evidence against the
petitioners, petitioners being females accused have inbuilt concession of bail in
terms of proviso of section 437 Cr.P.C, which provides that bail can be granted
in a non-bailable offences on three circumstances viz (i) a person below 16
years of age (ii) a woman and (iii) sick or infirm person, petitioners are
covered under clause 2 of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C and being woman
have every right to be released on bail even if the court comes to the
conclusion that strong prima facie case is made out against them still the court
can exercise its discretion and petitioners being females can be enlarged on bail
with certain conditions. It is argued, that the basic rule is "bail and not jail",
petitioners though indicted for commission of offences which are punishable
with death penalty or life imprisonment, in view of the proviso of Section 437
Cr.P.C they can be enlarged on bail. To support his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners have relied upon the rulings reported in (i) judgment passed
by High Court of Karnataka in case titled Kavitha V. State of Karnataka
Crl.P.No. 2509 of 2019 decided on 05.08.2019, (ii) Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
CBI 2022 SCC Online SC 825, (iii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, (1977) 4
SCC 308, & (iv) Nethra vs State of Karnataka [(Criminal Petition No. 2306 of
2022) decided on 12.05.2022].
4. Mr. Sumit Bhaita, learned GA for the respondents, per-contra, has strenuously
opposed the bail on the grounds, that out of total 31 witnesses, prosecution has
examined as many as 15 witnesses and none of them are hostile, PW-2 eye
witness namely Munshi Ram has categorically depicted the role of petitioners
in committing the murder of deceased Bodh Raj, trial is being conducted
speedily as almost for last three years as many as 15 prosecution witnesses
have been examined. It is argued, that at the stage of grant or refusal of bail
thorough reasons/marshalling of evidence with the point of view of possibility
of conviction or otherwise cannot be considered and moreso the credibility,
reliability and admissibility of the prosecution witnesses so far examined
cannot be looked into for the purpose of consideration of bail application, and
even longer period of incarceration is not a ground for grant of bail to the
accused. It is moreso argued, that proviso 2 to Section 437 of Cr. P.C. does not
lay down an invariable and mandatory provision of law that in all cases of
heinous nature like the one in hand where the petitioners have been indicted for
murder, the female accused have to a mandatorily granted bail, the court has to
exercise the discretion in a judicial manner and not in arbitrary manner,
releasing of petitioners on bail at this stage would adversely affect the
prosecution case as the remaining witnesses who are still unexamined there is
every possibility that the petitioners may influence and win over the
prosecution witnesses thereby jeopardizing the case of prosecution. It is
vehemently argued, that the proviso 2 (1) of section 437 of Cr.P.C. is an
enabling provision which confers jurisdiction upon the Court which has to be
exercised in a judicial manner, the said proviso does not specifically lay down
a mandatory provision of law that all the persons covered by the said proviso
should necessarily be released on bail, the provision of bail to women, sick and
old aged persons is not mandatory but discretionary, the gravity and
seriousness of the offence has to be primarily considered, the personal liberty
of a person can be curtailed under the Code of Criminal Procedure which is
one of the procedural laws and unless special circumstances are not projected,
the benefit of proviso 2 to Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. cannot be availed by the
accused. To support his arguments, learned GA has relied upon the Judgments
report in (i) (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280 (Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT.
Delhi and Another), (ii) 1992 CriLJ 3634 (Chandrawat (In Jail) Vs. State of
UP, decided by Allahabad High Court on 01.04.1992) & (iii) Ahalya @
Kalyani Vs. State of Odisha, (BLAPL No. 5200 of 2019 decided by High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack on 26.08.2019).
5. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned GA for respondents,
bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material aspects involved in the
case, meticulously scanned the ratios of the judgments relied by Ld. Counsel
for the parties and gone through the relevant law on the subject matter.
6. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a case law titled Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh
Rajan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528 while succinctly laying
down the broader principles for grant or refusal of bail in non-bailable offence
and while observing that the detailed examination and elaborate documentation
of merit of the case need not be undertaken, in para 11 of the judgment
observed as under:-
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The
court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is
also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension
of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge"
7. Principles of law enunciated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case (supra)
squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. In 2021 Legal Eagle 407
[Sunny Choudhary Versus State of J&K] a Coordinate Bench of this High
Court while rejecting the bail to the accused for commission of offences
u/ss 302/460/148/149/427/120-B/109 RPC and observing that at the stage
of granting bail during trial detailed examination of evidence and merits of
the case are not to be considered and moreso the court cannot go into the
question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses, in paras 10 &11 of
the judgment held as under:-
10. The law is well settled that the court should refrain from
appreciating the evidence, while considering the bail
application. Further the Apex Court in Satish Jaggi v. State
of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195 has held as
under:
"12. Normally if the offence is non-bailable also, bail
can be granted if the facts and circumstances so
demand. We have already observed that in granting
bail in non-bailable offence, the primary
consideration is the gravity and the nature of the
offence. A reading of the order of the learned Chief
Justice shows that the nature and the gravity of the
offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the
society was not at all considered. We are more
concerned with the observations and findings
recorded by the learned Chief Justice on the
credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at
the stage of granting bail. By making such
observations and findings, the learned Chief Justice
has virtually acquitted the accused of all the criminal
charges leveled against him even before the trial. The
trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to
stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution
case. At the stage of granting of bail, the court can
only go into the question of the prima facie case
established for granting bail. It cannot go into the
question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses
put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility
and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be
tested during the trial.
13. In the present case, the findings recorded by the
learned Chief Justice, as referred to above, virtually
amount to the regular trial pointing out the deficiency
and reliability/credibility of the prosecution evidence.
Such findings recorded at the stage of consideration
of bail, in our view, cannot be allowed to sustain."
11. There are serious allegations against the petitioner of
hatching a conspiracy for committing murder and
arranging the killers in pursuance of the said conspiracy, At
this stage, it cannot be determined that the allegations are
either false or not true as number of other witnesses are yet
to be examined and there is every chance that if the
petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the
witnesses as the petitioner is facing trial for commission of
offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment to
life. So far as delay in the conclusion of trial is concerned,
perusal of record shows that the trial court has conducted
the effective proceedings and even to secure the presence of
the complainant-PW-1, trial court has resorted to even
coercive process. It requires to be noted that for the last two
years, the courts have been functioning in restricted node
and obviously some delay has caused due to Covid-19
pandemic in conducting the trial of the case.
In 2009 (II) SLJ 681 (Gandarb Singh V/s State), Hon‟ble J&K High Court
while rejecting bail to the accused indicted for commission of offence of
murder u/s 302 RPC, in para 7,8,9 & 10 held as under:-
"(7) In order to decide this bail application, it is important to look into
the evidence, which has come on record. Grant of bail at this stage
depends upon the involvement of the accused in the same offences,
which are reflected from the statement of witnesses, who have been
examined. It is also important that any observation made which
appreciating the evidence will have direct affect on the outcome of the
trial. However, it is not in dispute that court has power to grant bail
during the pendency of the trial. The only question which requires to be
examined by this court at this stage is that what is the evidence which
has come against the accused
(8) After scanning through the evidence which has come on record more
particularly the statement of Sanjeev Kumar, I do not find at this stage
that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
(9) The accused can be granted bail only, if evidence, which come on
record, overwhelmingly points towards non-involvement of the
accused in the case. Where there are two views possible, the court
must ordinarily refrain from exercising its powers under Section 498
Cr.pc while granting the bail in such cases.
(10) Coming to the case in hand, I do not find the accused entitled to
bail". Ratio of judgment (supra) makes the legal position abundantly
clear, that bail can be granted to an accused indicted for commission of
offence of murder u/s 302 RPC only if the evidence on record does not
point towards the involvement of accused in the case."
Ratios of the judgments (Supra) lay down an invariable rule of law, "that
when the trial of a case is in progress, gravity and seriousness of offence is
relevant factor, and when number of material witnesses are yet to be
examined and if any finding or view is made by the court while taking into
account statements of witnesses or for that matter any finding on their
credibility and evidentiary value at the stage of granting or refusing bail it
would seriously prejudice the prosecution case, moreso, bail can be granted
to the accused only if evidence on record overwhelmingly points towards
non involvement of the accused in the case, and if two views are possible,
the court must ordinarily refrain from granting bail to the accused".
8. The gravamen of the prosecution allegations against the petitioners are, that
they in furtherance of their criminal common intention on 30.05.2019 at 10
pm alongwith co-accused entered in the house of one Bodh Raj situated at
Shali Katari, the accused were equipped with axe and sticks and assaulted
deceased Bodh Raj thereby committed his murder, whereafter, the dead
body was lifted from the spot and thrown from a hill in order to destroy the
evidence, while the bed sheet which was used for carrying the dead body
was also burnt, whereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found in
Khatru Forest Gouri Mitti Upper Kalsote area at an isolated place in
Panchari area of District Udhampur. Section 439 Cr.P.C vests no blanket
power to the court to grant bail. Though discretion under Section is
unfettered but it has to be exercised judicially. The overriding
considerations in granting bail which are common both in Sections 437 (1)
and 439 (1), Cr.P.C are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which
the offences has been committed, the position and status of the accused with
reference to victim and the witnesses, likelihood of accused fleeing from
justice and tampering with witnesses etc. No list of exhaustive grounds can
be set out and facts differ from case to case. Bail is at the most a matter of
procedural privilege and not an accrued right until it is granted. The law is
the sentinel of rights of society and of the individual. The cause of public
justice has to be zealously guarded as the rights of criminal/defendant.
Interest of society and also cause of public justice has also to be kept in
mind while granting or refusing bail. When the offence is of such nature
which affects the vital interest of society and has adverse affect on social
and family life, in such matter the issue is to be considered with a reference
to them. One of the considerations which has to be weighed for granting or
refusing bail is a nature of the offence and its heinousness. Hence the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and larger interest of the
public and cause of public justice have to be considered. The purpose of
refusing bail to accused allegedly committing a heinous offence is, that
their roaming at large and their remaining outside, may have a deleterious
effect on the minds of general public and thwart the courts of justice.
9. Perusal of statements of two eye witnesses of the case namely PW-2
Munshi Ram and PW-3 Badri Nath reveal that none of them are hostile.
PW-2 Munshi Ram in his deposition before the trial court has narrated the
sequence of events and the role attributed to the petitioners and other co-
accused persons by deposing that accused Baldev with axe assaulted
deceased Bodh Raj, accused Sheshpaul with the same axe inflicted injuries
upon Bodh Raj in his stomach, accused Koushalya Devi with axe inflicted
blow upon deceased while accused Nisha Devi and Raifa Devi alongwith
danda‟s/sticks assaulted the deceased. In the case laws supra of "Sunny
Choudhary [2021 Legal Eagle 40], & Satish Jaggi [(2007) 11 SCC 195]"
the legal position is no longer res-integra that at the time of disposal of bail
application there should not be observations and findings on the credibility
and evidentiary value of the witnesses, the court can only go to the question
of prima facie case established for grant of bail and cannot go into the
question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses of the prosecution,
moreso the gravity and seriousness of offence is a relevant consideration for
purpose of grant or refusal of bail. In Gandarb Singh's case supra, [(2009
(ii) SLJ 681] the J&K High Court has categorically held, that in case of
offence of murder u/s 302 RPC the bail can be granted only to the accused
if the evidence which come on record overwhelmingly points towards non-
involvement of the accused in the case.
10. In 2001 (4) Supreme Court Cases 280 titled as Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs.
NCT, Delhi and Another) relied by learned counsel for the respondents,
whereby Hon‟ble Apex Court refused bail to the accused indicted for
commission of offence Under Section 302 IPC on the ground that the
persons specified in first proviso Sub-Section (1) of Section 437 should not
necessarily be released on bail if it is reasonably appear that they are guilty
of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. "In 1992 CriLJ
3634 (Chandrawati (in Jail) Vs. State of UP," relied by learned counsel for
respondents High Court of Allahabad rejected bail to old lady of 70 years of
age indicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201,
IPC on the ground that a provision of bail to women sick or old aged person
is not mandatory and it is discretionary. "In Bail Application No. 5200 of
2019 (Ahalyas @ Kalyani Vs. State of Odisha)," further relied by learned
counsel for respondents, High Court of Orissa has rejected the bail to
women accused on the ground of nature and gravity of accusation and
likelihood of tampering with the evidence. Ratio‟s of the Judgments (supra)
relied learned GA for respondents laid down an invariable principle of law
that the proviso to sub-Section (1) Section 437 of Cr.P.C is not mandatory
but directory, and in grave offences of murder where the punishment is
death penalty or imprisonment for life, grant of bail would depend upon
facts and circumstances of each case, and cannot be an
invariable/mandatory rule of law that in all cases of murder where the
ladies/females are accused, the bail should always be granted.
11. In Kavitha Vs. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No 2509 of 2019) relied by
learned counsel for the petitioners, Karnataka High Court held, that even if
a strong prima facie case is made out against a woman, still the court can
exercise its discretion to enlarge the woman accused on bail with
conditions. In Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI [(2022) SCC Online SC
825)] relied by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held,
that where the accused is under the age of 16 years, sick or infirm or a
woman, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. "In State of
Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308" further relied by learned
counsel for petitioners, Hon‟ble Apex Court of India held, that the basic
rule may perhaps be tersely put a bail, not a jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice bail should be refused. In "Nethra Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Petition No. 2306/2022) decided by Karnataka High Court," bail was
granted to the accused/petitioner who was woman and indicted for
commission of offence u/ss 302,120-B, 34 IPC on the ground that no overt
act was alleged against the petitioner.
12. Petitioners/accused are involved in commission of offences under Sections
302/458/147 & 201 RPC of Police Station Panchari for commission of
murder of one Bodh Raj. Offence under Section 302 RPC is punishable
with death penalty or imprisonment for life. Charges have been framed
against the accused/petitioners and other co-accused by the trial court of ld.
Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur and till 10.08.2022 as many as 15
witnesses out of 31 have been examined. Two eye witnesses examined by
the prosecution namely PW-2 namely Munishi Ram and PW-3 namely
Badri Nath are not hostile towards the prosecution and have even not ruled
out the complicity of petitioners/accused in the crime. The legal position is
manifestly clear that bail can be granted to accused indicted for commission
of murder under Section 302 RPC only if the evidence on record does not
point towards involvement of accused in the case. There are serious
allegations against the petitioners in other co-accused for committing
murder of one Bodh Raj. At the stage it cannot be determined that the
allegations are false or not true as number of other material witnesses are
yet to be examined. There is every possibility that if the petitioners are
enlarged on bail they may influence the witnesses as they are facing trial for
commission of heinous offence of murder which is punishable with the
death penalty or imprisonment for life. Law is no longer res-integra that
gravity and seriousness of offence is a relevant consideration for grant or
refusal of bail. In the case in hand, the trail is a progress and if any finding
or view is expressed by this Court at this stage regarding the credibility
evidentiary value of the witnesses examined so far, it would seriously
prejudice the case of prosecution. Even the law is well settled that where
two views are possible, the view which refrains from granting bail to the
accused must be followed. Accused/petitioners are lying in custody since
their arrest on 02.06.2019 & 01.07.2019 and for the last three years they are
lying in detention in District Jail, Udampur. Longer period of incarceration
is not even a ground for enlargement of accused on bail. Arguments
propounded by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners/accused
are females and have every right to release on bail, in view of the proviso
to 437 (1) Cr.P.C and law discussed above, are legally untenable, repelled,
discarded and rejected. None of the case laws relied by learned counsel for
the petitioners laid down and invariable/mandatory rule of law that bail has
always to be granted to females accused indicted in grave offence of
murder. In the case laws referred to me by learned GA for respondents, law
is well settled that it is the Judicial discretion of the Court to grant bail and
the primary condition is that the gravity and seriousness of offence has to be
considered by the Court and its impact upon the society at large.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion petitioners/accused have miserably
failed in carving out a strong case for bails in their favour. I do not find that
the petitioners/accused at this stage are entitled to bail, the bail application
being pre-matured is, accordingly, disallowed, rejected and dismissed.
Trial court to make every endeavor to expedite the trial.
14. Disposed of alongwith connected CM(s), if any.
(Mohan Lal)
Judge
Jammu
10.02.2023
Vijay
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
