Karnataka High Court
Mr. Kichan Buhari @ Bugari vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
CRL.A No.960/2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.960/2024 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
MR.KICHAN BUHARI @ BUGARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SHAIK MOHINUDDIN
R/AT NO.96, VENKATTEKUTTIL VILLAGE
MELAPALYAM, TIRUNALVELI
TAMIL NADU - 627 005 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VYALIKAWAL POLICE (CCB)
REP. BY SPL PP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
Digitally
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2024 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL
Location:
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
High Court of
Karnataka NIA CASES) CCH-50 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT (ACCUSED
NO.3) ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.381/2015 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.118/2013 OF VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 121, 121A, 123, 307, 332,
435, 201 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 OF INDIAN EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PREVENTION OF
DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 AND SECTIONS 3, 10, 11,
13, 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT, 1967.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 14.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
CRL.A No.960/2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Challenging dismissal of his bail application, accused No.3
in S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 on the file of XLIX
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of
NIA Cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant and 22 others are being tried in
S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 on the charge that the
accused motivated by extreme religious ideologies conspired to
wage war against India and indulged in Jihadi activities. In
execution of such conspiracy and to take revenge against ruling
BJP Government in Karnataka for the arrest of Abdul Nasar
Madani they decided to blast bombs near BJP office in
Bengaluru, Karnataka. They planted bombs near BJP office,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Due to explosion of those bombs, the
police vehicles, private vehicles suffered damages, police
personnel and some public were also injured.
3. Appellant filed application before the Trial Court
seeking grant of bail on the ground that there is delay in trial,
the prosecution opposed the application on the ground that the
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
appellant is the mastermind of the crime and there is prima
facie material to establish his involvement. The prosecution
further contended that appellant is involved in several similar
cases and has been convicted for terrorist acts and there is no
delay on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial.
Hence sought dismissal of the application.
4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the
impugned order has rejected the application of the appellant on
the ground that the offence alleged against the appellant is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and having
regard to his antecedents and materials on record, he is not
entitled to bail.
5. Heard both side.
Submissions of Sri S.Balakrishnan, learned Counsel for
appellant:
6(i) Appellant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2013.
There are 273 charge sheet witnesses. Out of them only 78
witnesses have been examined so far. Still large number of
witnesses have to be examined. Before NIA Special Court, 70
cases are pending. The trial is getting delayed. The evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
PW.50 shows that there was no explosive material in the object
examined.
(ii) Though it is contended that the appellant is
involved in several other cases, except in one case, he is
acquitted in all other cases. Even in that conviction case, he is
sentenced to seven years of imprisonment which he has
already served. Appeal against the said judgment is pending
before Madras High Court. The appellant is suffering from
hepatomegaly hydatid disease since 2014. He has undergone
surgeries.
(iii) The trial Court rejected the bail application solely on
the ground of bar under Section 43D(5) of UAP Act. The
offences alleged against the appellant are punishable with
imprisonment upto 7 years. Under the circumstances, the trial
Court committed gross error in not granting bail.
7. In support of his submissions, he relies on the
following judgments:
(i) SK.Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P.1
(ii) Union of India v K.A.Najeeb2
(iii) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra3
(2024) 8 SCC 293
(2021) 3 SCC 713
2024 SCC Online SC 1693
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
(iv) Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement4
(v) Mohd.Muslim Alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)5
(vi) Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab6
(vii) Sri Mohan Nayak N. v State of Karnataka7
Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II
for respondent:
8(i) Appellant was mastermind of the crime. He is the
member of banned organization Al-Umma. He conspired with
other accused for commission of crime against the State. He
entrusted the responsibility for execution of the task/mission of
bomb blast to the other accused persons. He procured
explosives through accused Nos.16 and 14. He deposited the
explosives in the houses of accused Nos.5 to 7 and 11 and
transported the same from Coimbatore to Erode in Innova Car
and delivered the same to accused No.9. Accused No.9 on
receipt of such substance, prepared explosives and explosive
device in hiding place in Puttur in Andhra Pradesh. Accused
Nos.8 and 9 planted the same in motorcycle and parked the
said motorcycle near BJP office situated at Malleshwaram,
2024 SCC Online SC 1920
2023 SCC Online SC 352
NC NO.2023: PHHC:143731
Crl.P.No.7963/2023 DD 07.12.2023
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
Bengaluru which blasted leading to injuries to the police
personnel, public and damage to the properties, thereby, the
accused indulged in anti national activities with Jihadi spirit.
(ii) Appellant has indulged in 17 criminal cases in Tamil
Nadu, out of which one is pending in NIA Court, Poonamalle,
Tamil Nadu. He is convicted in Coimbatore bomb blast case,
where 58 people died. There are sufficient incriminating
materials against him. The trial was delayed due to lapses of
the accused only. Accused Nos.8 to 10 who are lodged in
Chennai jail, refused to answer the charges framed against
them. The trial commenced in April 2022. So far 78 witnesses
are examined, 125 witnesses are given up by the prosecution
and the prosecution is going to give up another 40 witnesses.
Only 60 witnesses are likely to be examined. The trial is going
on day-to-day basis. Accused No.19 was absconding since 1995
and was apprehended belatedly. If appellant is granted bail, he
is also likely to be absconded.
(iii) The medical reports secured by this Court show that
appellant is being given required treatment and his condition is
stable. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for
appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
The trial Court on considering the materials on record and by
judicious reasons, has rejected the application. Hence the
appeal be dismissed.
9. On considering the submissions of both side and on
examination of the materials on record, the question that arises
for consideration under the facts and circumstances of the case
is "whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the bail
application of the appellant?"
Analysis
10. Appellant and 22 other accused are being
prosecuted in S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 for the
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A,
120B, 123, 307, 332, 435 and 201 of IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and
6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and
Sections 3, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of UAP Act.
11. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) That accused No.16 is an active member of banned
Islamic organization called Al-Umma. As revenge for demolition
of Babri Masjid, he indulged in terrorist activities in India in the
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
name of Jihad and intended to make India, Islamic country
(Dar-ul-Islam). In 1988, he and his aides blasted bombs in
Coimbatore to kill BJP leader Sri L.K.Advani, leading to loss of
lives of hundreds of people and accused No.16 started
Institution called Charitable Trust of Minorities ('CTM' for short)
to lend financial assistance to jailed Muslim accused in terrorist
cases. He used to raise funds to help them.
(ii) Appellant was in charge of Tirunelveli and
Coimbatore Branches of CTM and he used to conduct
conspiracy meeting. He had grudge against Karnataka BJP
Government on the ground that they are responsible for arrest
of Abdul Nasar Madani, an accused of Coimbatore Bomb blast
and for not getting bail to him. Under the impression that, if
BJP Government comes to power they might drive the Muslim
away and not lend any help for release of Muslim youth who
are in jail, he decided to wage jihad/war against Karnataka
Government. For that purpose he mobilised the other accused
to carry out jihadi activities.
(iii) Appellant and accused Nos.2, 5 to 14, 16 and 18
hatched criminal conspiracy for conducting various blasts and
wage war against the Government. In furtherance of the
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
conspiracy and to take revenge against the ruling BJP
Government in Karnataka, accused secured explosive
materials. In execution of such conspiracy, they fixed time
bomb in motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-R-3739 and
parked the same near BJP Office. Said bomb exploded leading
to extensive damage to KSRP van bearing Registration
No.KA-01-G-8473. In the blast, 12 KSRP police personnel, 6
civilians sustained injuries and many vehicles i.e. two wheelers
and four wheelers parked near the said place were damaged.
12. Specific role assigned to appellant is that himself
and accused Nos.8 to 10 held several conspiracy meetings with
other accused in residence of appellant, accused No.13 and
other places between October 2012 and April 2013. They
motivated other accused and involved them in Jihadi activities
to wage war against India and damage economic fabric of
India. Appellant was mastermind behind BJP bomb blast case.
He entrusted responsibility to the remaining accused. He
procured explosives through accused Nos.16 and 14. He
deposited those explosives in the house of accused Nos.5, 6
and 7 to 11. He transported the explosives from Coimbatore to
Erode by Innova Car and delivered the same to accused No.9.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
Accused No.9 on receipt of such substance, hid the said
explosives in Puttur in Andhra Pradesh. Upon his instructions,
accused Nos.8 and 9 planted the same in motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-22-R-3739 and left the same near BJP
Office which led to blast damaging the properties and injuries
to the police personnel and other people.
13. The trial Court on hearing both side held that there
are grounds to proceed against the accused and has framed
charges. On framing the charges, trial is being conducted. The
main grounds for seeking bail are that appellant is in custody
for more than 10 years and on his medical issue.
14. So far as the medical ground, on the direction of
this Court, Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison, Bangalore
submitted report dated 01.04.2025 regarding medical condition
of the appellant. The said report shows that the appellant was
diagnosed with hepatomegaly with hydatid cyst of liver disease
as long back as in the year 2014 and he underwent surgery for
the same on 22.09.2014, thereafter required treatment is being
provided to him. The report further shows that on 07.08.2023
surgery for recurrent hydatid cyst was done and his health
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
condition is stable. Therefore the contention that for his medical
condition, he needs immediate release cannot be accepted.
15. It was contended that the appellant is in custody for
more than 10 years and thereby he has already served the
sentence of more than half of the period of sentence prescribed
for the offence alleged against him, hence he is entitled for bail.
16. Out of the offences alleged against the appellant,
the offence under Section 121 of IPC is punishable with death
or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore the trial Court has
rightly rejected the contention that appellant has already
undergone detention for more than half of the prescribed period
of sentence.
17. So far as involvement of appellant in the offence,
the trial Court on hearing both side, found that there are
materials to proceed against the accused and framed the
charges against him for the aforesaid offence. Appellant
admittedly has not challenged the said order. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment in Gurwinder Singh v State of Punjab8,
has held that once the charges are framed, it would be safe to
assume that a very strong suspicion was found upon the
(2024) 5 SCC 403
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
materials before the Court which prompted the Court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused
to justify framing of charge. It is further held that in such cases
the accused has arduous task to satisfy the Court that despite
framing of charge, the materials presented along with the
charge sheet do not make out reasonable grounds for believing
that there is no prima facie case against him.
18. In this case, the charges are framed and admittedly
the same is not challenged. Thus the trial Court was justified in
holding that there is prima facie case against the accused for
the offences alleged against him. Apart from such prima facie
case, antecedents of accused also become relevant in deciding
entitlement for bail.
19. Prosecution contends that appellant is involved in
multiple cases, he was convicted in many cases and in few
cases he is acquitted. Particulars of the said cases are as
follows:
Name of Police As per
Sl. Sections
Station Crime No. Statement of Case Status
No. Invoked
Objection
Melapalayam 147, 148, 302
Acquitted vide
1 (Muthukrishnan 251/1997 IPC
FTC-1, Tirunalveli
murder case)
Date:24.02.2003
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
Melapalayam 147, 148, 341,
Acquitted vide
2 (Abubacker 375/1997 450, 307, 302
FTC-2, Tirunalveli
murder case) IPC
Date:24.12.2002
Pending Trial Spl. SC
153(A), 109,
Pending Trial
120(b) r/w 5 of
Poonamalle Bomb
3 Tirunelveli CBCID 01/2013 IES Act 1908 and
Blast Court,
18 U.A.P. Act
Chennai
1967 (A-15)
Next hearing
Date:19.09.2025
Pending Trial PRC No.166/2022
4 of Explosive Pending Trial
Coimbatore City
4 95/2013 Substances Act CJM Coimbatore
B14 Kuniamuthur
1908 (A-5) Next hearing
Date:17.09.2005
147, 148, 341,
5 Melapalayam 71/1996 ascertain the Acquitted
397 & 307 IPC
correct stage On 05.12.2005
147, 148, 506(ii) ascertain the Acquitted JM-VI,
IPC correct stage TIN
Date:25.06.2001
Trying to
336, 294(b), Could not able to
7 Palayamkottai 683/2001 ascertain the
506(i) IPC collect details
correct stage
5(a) of E.S Act Trying to
and 294(b), 353, ascertain the
Pending Trial
307, 506(ii), correct stage
8 Achampudur 302/2008 CJM Tenkasi
120(b) IPC and
Next hearing
25(1)(a) of Arms
Date:18.09.2005
Act
341, 294 (b), Trying to
9 Melapalayam 80/2010 352, 363, 506(ii) ascertain the Acquitted
IPC correct stage
Tirunelveli Trying to CC No.343/2013
147, 341, 323,
10 District 944/2012 ascertain the Acquitted
506 (ii) IPC
Palayamkottai correct stage On 13.12.2018
147, 148, 336, Trying to
324 IPC and 3 of ascertain the
Tirunelveli City Tamil Nadu correct stage
11 1236/2013 Acquitted
Perumalpuram Property
on 19.01.2024
(Prevention of
Damage and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
Loss) Act, 1992,
& 9 (b) Explosive
Substance Act
307 IPC & 4(a) & Trying to
6 of ES Act. ascertain the
Acquitted
(Bomb hurled on correct stage
12 Trichy Ponmalai 108/1998 On 15.10.2007
the jeep of
Poonamalle BBC
Inspector Thiru
Court, Chennai
Murali)
Convicted for Acquitted
Melapalayam life Vide CA
120B, 147, 148,
(Arumugam imprisonment No.458/2006
13 104/1996 349, 342, 302
Chettiar murder on 12.12.2003 Date:23.11.2006
IPC
case) by FTC-I, in
Tirunelveli Madurai High Court
Convicted for Acquitted
Melapalayam
life Vide CA
(Kannan murder 120B, 147, 148,
14 & Dr.Selvakumar 233/1997 341, 449, 109,
on 25.07.2007 Date:30.09.2008
Case) 302, 149, 34 IPC
by FTC-I, in
Tirunelveli Madurai High Court
Melapalayam Convicted for Acquitted
(Tailor Shankar 120B, 147, 148, life Vide CA
and 449, 452, 342, imprisonment No.422/2007
Dr.Selvakumar 302, 149, 427, on 25.07.2007 Date:30.09.2008
murder case) 324, 326, 34 IPC by FTC-I, in
Tirunelveli Madurai High Court
SC He has completed
Coimbatore B-1 No.1339/2012 his term of
Bazaar Convicted for sentence and has
(Coimbatore 7 years RI by belatedly filed an
147, 148, 149,
serial Special Court, appeal before the
427, 307, 302,
16 bomb blast case 151/1998 Coimbatore Hon'ble Madras
120(b) IPC & 3,
more than 50 High Court in
4, 5 of IES Act.
Death and 206 Criminal Appeal
injured No.1293/2024,
(Total 41 cases) which is still
pending.
Convicted for Convicted for 2
2 years on years on
17 JM-II Coimbatore 346(I) Cr.PC
24.01.2006 24.01.2006
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
Apart from the above cases, below is the list of other cases
with their stage/results.
Sl. Police Station Crime No. Section Stage Remarks
No. invoked
1 Melapalayam 439/1994 324 IPC Acquitted -----
2 Perundurai 392/2012 279, 337 IPC Convicted This case pertains to
Fine Rs.2500/- an accident that
On 02.07.2012 occurred earlier when
JM Perundurai. the accused was
traveling in the Innova
Car, which was used
to transport
explosives in this
case, along with the
18th accused.
3 Coimbatore, 339/2017 120B, 387, 364, CC No.581/2019 This case was
Ukkadam 511 IPC Pending Trial registered while he
(A-10) JM-V, Coimbatore was in judicial
Next Hearing custody.
Date:12.10.2025
4 Bengaluru City, 28/2023 34, 323, 341, CC No.10257/2023 This case was
Parappana 506 IPC Compromised on registered while he
Agrahara 04.07.2023 was in judicial
(A-1) custody.
This case relates to an
incident in which the
23rd accused, Syed Ali,
in the recently filed
case concerning the
blast near the
Malleshwaram BJP
office, was intending
to plead guilty. While
in prison, he was
threatened and
assaulted by the
accused, along with
other co-accused, to
prevent him from
pleading guilty.
20. The above statistics about antecedents of appellant
are also not disputed. Though it is claimed at Sl.Nos.13 to 15 of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
the above table, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial
Court is reversed by the Appellate Court, the judgments of
acquittals were not placed before this Court to show that they
were Hon'ble acquittal. So far as other cases, those orders are
also not placed to show whether they were Hon'ble acquittals or
acquittal extending benefit of doubt.
21. Irrespective of the cases where the appellant is
granted acquittal, the above table shows that cases at Sl.Nos.1
to 4 in 1st table involve heinous offences and in these cases,
trial is still going on. The particulars furnished regarding
C.C.No.10257/2023 arising out of Crime No.28/2023 of
Parapanaagrahara Police Station shows that when one of the
accused intended to plead guilty, he was threatened. However,
that case was later compounded.
22. Prosecution's contention that some delay was
caused in recording plea of accused Nos.8, 9, 10 due to their
refusal to answer the charge is not disputed. The particulars of
trial dates shown in para 5 of the statement of objections are
also not disputed. That shows that hearing commenced in the
year 2015 itself and the evidence commenced in 2022. Out of
273 charge sheet witnesses, admittedly as on the date the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
appeal was heard, 78 witnesses were examined and 125
witnesses were given up by the prosecution.
23. Learned SPP-II submitted that out of the remaining
witnesses, another 40 witnesses are going to be given up and
only 60 witnesses are likely to be examined. It was submitted
that most of them are official witnesses. Thus more than half of
the trial is over.
24. In all the judgments relied on by learned Counsel
for the appellant, it was held that if the accused was
incarcerated without trial, Section 43D of the UAP Act does not
restrict the power of the constitutional Court to grant bail.
Absolutely, there cannot be any dispute with the said
proposition of law.
25. In para 18 of the judgment in S K Javed Iqbal's
case referred to supra, it was held that accused were in custody
for more than 9 years and only two witnesses were examined.
In that case despite query of the Court, the State Government
was not able to apprise the Court how many witnesses the
prosecution intends to examine and number of witnesses
recorded as on that date.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
26. Para 4 of the judgment in K.A.Najeeb's case
referred to supra shows that there appellant sought
cancellation of bail and co-accused who were facing trial were
granted bail/were tried and acquitted. Thus parity principle was
invoked and in that case trial had not yet commenced though
the accused was in custody for more than four years. The said
case did not involve the offence of murder and the magnitude
of the offences was not similar to the one on hand.
27. Reading of the judgment in Manish Sisodia's case
referred to supra shows that in that case the accused was in
custody without commencement of the trial.
28. Since in these cases on hand there is substantial
progress in the trial, the aforesaid judgments cannot be
justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. Facts
discussed above lead to the conclusion that there are
reasonable grounds to believe involvement of the accused for
the offences alleged against him. Apart from that he is
convicted in Coimbatore bomb blast case on the similar charge
of anti national activities. He is involved in many similar cases.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
29. Article 51A (c)(e)(i) of the Constitution reads as
follows:
"51A. Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty of
every citizen of India-
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its
ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the
National Anthem;
(b)
.....................................................................................
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty,
unity and integrity of India;
(d) ..............................................................................
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst all the people of
India transcending religious, linguistic and regional
or sectional diversities; to renounce practices
derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) ...............................................................................
(g) ..............................................................................
(h) ..............................................................................
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure
violence."
30. The materials on record, at this stage, prima facie
show that the appellant has acted contrary to the duties to
protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, spirit of
common brotherhood amongst people of India transcending
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45356-DB
HC-KAR
religious diversities, failed to value and preserve composite
culture, safeguard public property and to abjure violence. In
the light of the above discussions, the judgments relied by
learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be justifiably applied
to the facts of the present case.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, in the considered opinion
of this Court, it cannot be said that trial Court has committed
any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the bail application of the
appellant. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KSR
