Rakesh Maini vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 626 Patna

Patna High Court

Rakesh Maini vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2026

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61930 of 2024
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-738 Year-2017 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
     ======================================================
     Rakesh Maini Son Of Tilak Raj Maini Resident Of Village - 305, Blue
     Diamond, Juhu Tara Road, P.S. - Santacruz (West), District - Mumbai
     Saburban

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                             Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Ram Prasad Sharma Resident Of Azad Path,
     Saristabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
                                       Ms.Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
                                       Mr. Keshav Bharadwaj, Advocate
     For the State             :       Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP
     For the O.P. No. 2        :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 26-02-2026

                             Heard         Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned

      counsel assisted by Ms. Aditi Hansari, learned counsel for the

      petitioner, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State and

      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

                             2. The present application has been filed for

      following relief(s):-

                                              "That the present application is

                       being       filed    for   quashing      the    order      dated

                       05.12.2022

passed by Learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Patna, in G.R. Case No 8223/2017 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

arising out Kotwali P.S. Case No 738/2017

whereby cognizance has been taken under 406,

409, 467, 468, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Bihar Protection

of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as the "Impugned Order") against the

Petitioner as well as for setting aside the entire

criminal proceedings against the Petitioner."

3. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that

almost four years prior to institution of the present case, the

petitioner's mother, Jaimala Devi, had invested a sum of Rs.

8,62,000/- with Bharat Capital Services Ltd., a company duly

registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. Upon such

investment, the Company issued certificates to the investors

reflecting booking of plots under various schemes, incorporating

detailed terms and conditions relating to booking advance, buy-

back date, units/area in Sq. Ft. and the expected buy-back/resale

amount. It is alleged that the Company floated multiple schemes

including M.I.S., fixed deposit and recurring deposit schemes,

thereby inducing investors to deposit money periodically on the

assurance of return of principal amount, interest or allotment of

booked plots upon maturity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

4. It is the specific allegation of the

prosecution that the Directors of Bharat Capital Services Ltd.,

namely Rakesh Maini (petitioner) along with others, in

furtherance of a premeditated conspiracy, dishonestly induced

innocent investors to invest their hard-earned money and

thereafter failed to honour the commitments made under the

schemes. The Directors allegedly misappropriated the invested

funds by diverting the same for their personal gain and by

illegally acquiring properties, thereby causing wrongful loss to

the investors. Even after expiry of the maturity period, neither

the maturity amount was returned nor possession of the booked

plots was handed over, which prima facie establishes fraudulent

intention from the inception.

5. The prosecution further alleges that the Area

Manager, Saket Kumar, and the Branch Manager, Kanhai Prasad

Singh, in active collusion with the Directors, collected huge

sums from various investors and facilitated deposit of the same

with the Company, thereafter embezzling the deposited amounts

while receiving commissions. The informant has furnished a list

of twelve investors and has further alleged that several other

investors had deposited crores of rupees with the Company but

were cheated in a similar manner. It is also alleged that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

petitioner was operating B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multi

State Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. through his relatives

and was diverting funds collected under the schemes of Bharat

Capital Services Ltd. into the said cooperative society, where

serious financial irregularities and misuse of investors' money

have been alleged, thereby disclosing commission of cognizable

offences.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case

and the impugned order taking cognizance is illegal, arbitrary

and bad in law. It is submitted that the dispute arises purely out

of contractual transactions between the company and the

investors and does not disclose the essential ingredients of any

criminal offence. He further submits that the petitioner, being

the Managing Director, was concerned only with policy

decisions and expansion of business and had no role in the day-

to-day functioning of the Patna branch, which was managed by

local employees and commission agents. The FIR itself

demonstrates that the informant and the so-called witnesses are

commission agents and admittedly no genuine investor has

instituted any criminal proceeding against the petitioner or the

company.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

7. It has next been submitted that even if the

allegations made in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no

offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 is made out. There is no material to indicate dishonest or

fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction and at

best the allegations disclose a civil dispute. It has been

submitted that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be

used as a tool for recovery of alleged dues or for exerting

pressure upon the petitioner. It has further been submitted that

the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused and

there are no specific allegations attributing any individual or

overt act to the petitioner so as to attract vicarious criminal

liability. It is further submitted that the informant, being merely

a commission agent, had no authority to claim on behalf of

investors and the materials on record indicate that the dispute

has arisen due to misrepresentation by commission agents

regarding the terms of the scheme.

8. It has next been submitted that pursuant to

the order passed by this Hon'ble Court the petitioner deposited a

sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- before the court below and also caused

publication of a public notice dated 29.08.2023 inviting

investors to submit their claims along with supporting Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

documents. However, till date, no genuine investor has come

forward with any claim.

9. It has lastly been submitted that the entire

prosecution case is speculative and based on surmises and

conjectures and the continuation of the criminal proceeding

would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in

support of his arguments has relied upon few judgments which

are as under:

(i) Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore

Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 430

(ii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of

U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690

(iii) Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B.,

(2023) 15 SCC 135

(iv) Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,

(2015) 12 SCC 781

(v) Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of

Karnataka, (2022) 14 SCC 572

11. While referring to the case of

Ravindranatha Bajpe (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner

has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 8.3 and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

9, which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"8.3. As held by this Court in India Infoline Ltd. [GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505 :

(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 414] , in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A-1 and A-6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A-

1 and A-6.

9. From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents herein, Accused 1 to 8, there does not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

appear that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case against Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 and 8. Merely because Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 and 8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, as observed hereinabove, there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role. Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against Respondents 1 to 8 herein --

original Accused 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34IPC."

It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

categorically held that unless the prosecution is able to show a

specific role played by the Chairman, Managing Director,

Executive Director, etc., they cannot automatically be held

vicariously liable.

12. While referring to the judgment rendered

in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd (supra), learned

counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

Court to paragraph nos. 36 and 37, which read as under:

"36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients:

In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and (2) The person entrusted:

(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:

(i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or

(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 :

2002 SCC (Cri) 129] ).

Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:

(1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;

(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 620] ).

37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. "

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that,

in view of the aforesaid judgment, unless there is an intention of

cheating right from the inception, no case under section 420 of

the IPC would be made out. Learned counsel has further

referred to paragraph nos. 41, 42 and 43 in SCC of the said

judgment, which reads as under:

"41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept.

43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

offences cannot co-exist simultaneously."

13. In view of the above, in the present case

also, the cognizance has been taken both under section 406 and

420 of the IPC, and the same cannot co-exist.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Usha

Chakraborty (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

taken into account that disputes which are primarily civil in

nature cannot be settled through use of criminal proceedings as

a tool of harassment against accused persons, and continuance

of criminal proceedings against accused person would result in

abuse of process of court and also in miscarriage of justice.

15. In support of the arguments with regard to

the fact that the company was not made a party, the petitioner

has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sharad

Kumar Sanghi (supra), wherein the learned counsel for the

petitioner, referring to paragraph nos. 9, 11 and 13, has stated

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the company

has not been arrayed as an accused, no order can be passed

against the managing director or director of the company if there

is no requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability.

16. Referring to the judgment rendered in

Mitesh Kumar J. Sha (supra), the learned counsel for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

petitioner submits that, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has categorically held that there is no case regarding

criminal breach of trust or cheating, and the dispute, at best, can

be termed as mere breach of trust like in the present case, as the

instance of dishonest and fraudulent intention is not made out,

and it involves determination of issues of civil nature, and

therefore the FIR is liable to be quashed.

17. Thus, it had been submitted that, in view

of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, and in the present facts

and circumstances of the case, there is no material to make out a

case against the petitioner, and therefore the impugned order as

well as the FIR is fit to be quashed.

18. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, per

contra, submits that the present application is misconceived, and

it is a categorical case of the complainant that the petitioner,

being the Managing Director of the said company, has cheated

the complainant and various others of their valuable earnings,

and a maturity amount of Rs. 1,81,28,574/- has been

misappropriated by the company of the petitioner. It has been

submitted that the petitioner, while being granted bail by this

Court, had undertaken to pay certain amount and had thus

deposited an amount of Rs. 82 lakhs before the learned trial Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

court, as per the direction of this Hon'ble High Court, and

thereafter he was granted bail, and now the rest of the amount,

that is Rs. 99,28,574/-, has been kept pending.

19. It has been submitted by the learned

counsel for the O.P. No. 2 that the amount, though has been

deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the order of this

Hon'ble High Court granting him bail, however, the said

amount is still with the court, and it was directed, while the

provisional bail of the petitioner was confirmed, that the claims

of the various investors should be considered and the amounts

should be released in their favor by the learned trial court. It has

been submitted that though the petitioner claims that he has

taken efforts, but while referring to the advertisement which was

published by the company calling the investors, the learned

counsel for the petitioner points out that the size of the

advertisement itself goes on to show that the same cannot be

given to the knowledge of those who are mostly poor and

illiterate persons.

20. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits

that the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the investors

right from the beginning, and therefore, on that account, no

money was returned to the investors, and it was only under the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

pressure of this Hon'ble High Court that, while being granted

bail, he has deposited Rs. 82 lakhs. Learned counsel for the O.P.

No. 2 submitted that the office of the company has also been

closed in the State of Bihar, and therefore the demand of the

investors, including the complainants, could not be fulfilled, as

the investors are at a dire strait as to who shall look at their

interest on account of making payments.

21. It has also been submitted that the

petitioner is the Managing Director of Bharat Capital Services

Ltd., and he has expanded his business to Bihar by opening

various offices in Patna, and agents were also appointed for

bringing in investment, and when the maturity period came, the

petitioner has shied away from paying away the maturity

amount to the complainant. It was only when the payment was

not made that the complaint was filed after

investors/complainants were not given audience by the

company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to

various paragraphs of the counter affidavit wherein he has

brought the names of the persons, the agents and the investors

who have deposited amounts and what maturity amount they are

entitled to. It has been submitted that the petitioner, being the

managing director, is certainly liable for payment of the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

amount, especially when there is a specific allegation leveled

against him of committing fraud and misappropriating the

investment of the complainants and others in connivance with

the said officers of the company. It is thus submitted that there is

nothing wrong in the order taking cognizance, and the

petitioner, being the Managing Director of the said company, is

not only liable for the acts done on behalf of the company, but

there is a specific allegation against him of committing fraud by

misappropriating the amount invested by the complainants from

one company to the other company, which is also owned by the

petitioner.

22. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the

petitioner is the Managing Director of Bharat Capital Services

Limited. And there is also no denial to the fact that the

complainant and others had invested huge amount in the

company through their agents who were employed by the

petitioner's company. It has also been found that the petitioner,

during his bail application, had agreed for settlement of the

claims of all the investors, and to show his bona fide, initially he

has deposited Rs. 82,00,000/-, and thereafter, at the time of

confirmation of bail, a total of Rs.8,50,000/- was deposited by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

him to be paid to the investors.

23. Having gone through the written report

upon which the FIR was registered, it is evident that the

informant has categorically stated about the petitioner's role,

being the Managing Director, which is reproduced hereunder,

paragraph number thirty:

"lkFk gha ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr dEiuh ds funs"kdksa ftuesa RAKESH MAINI loZ izeq[k gSa] ds }kjk B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. dk fuca/ku djok dj B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. vius lh/ks fu;a=.k esa vius fudVLFk yksxksa }kjk pyk;k tk jgk gSA dEiuh BHARAT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD esa izkIr iwath fuos"k dh jkf"k dk /kks[kk/kM+h ls xcu dj mlh jkf"k ls ;g B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. pyk;k tk jgk gS ,oa B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. esa Hkh vfu;ferrk dj vke turk ls iwath fuos"k izkir dj mudk xcu fd;k tk jgk gSA XXX vr% Jheku ls vuqjks/k gS fd BHARAT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD rFkk BHARAT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD ds funs"kdksa ds }kjk B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. esa voS/k :i ls vke turk ls iwath fuos"k izkIr djus ,oa tkyh dkxtkr rS;kj dj QthZokM+k] /kks[kk/kM+h dj Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

fuos"k dh lEiw.kZ jkf"k dk xcu djus ds ekeys esa vko";d tkap iM+rky dj nks'kh O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A"

24. From the perusal of the same, it would be

evident that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner,

being the Managing Director, of misappropriating the amount

received by the company Bharat Capital Services Ltd. to another

company owned by the petitioner, being B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav

Nirman) Multistate Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.

25. This court also finds that there was a

specific request made to the SHO of the concerned police

station that the case be registered against the company Bharat

Capital Services Ltd. and its directors for misusing the

investments received and siphoning the same in the other,

namely so and so, and it was the police who had not made the

company an accused in the present case.

26. This court finds that there is a specific

allegation against the petitioner of siphoning of funds and the

petitioner, while being granted bail, had also accepted the

liability of refunding the amount and it is nowhere reflected that

the same was being deposited at the behest of the company, and

therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot raise a plea of

vicarious liability, being the Managing Director of the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

company. In view of such observations, not only there is

ingredient available for offenses under section 406 of the IPC,

but on account of the fact that the investments made by the

informant and other investors were being siphoned to some

other company, therefore ingredient of section 420 IPC is also

made out.

27. This Court cannot ignore one of the

confessional statements, which is part of the FIR given by one

Jitendra Kumar Mishra, who was working in a broking house

and doing online trading jobs. He in his confessional statement

has categorically stated that Bharat Services Capital Ltd. had

brought several schemes in the field of real estate and the Area

Manager and the Branch Manager and others had made people

invest in the same. He has categorically stated that when the

time for maturity arrived, the company started dilly-dallying the

claims and in fact, the manager even left the job and the

Managing Director of the Company created another Company,

namely, B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multi State Housing

Cooperative Society Ltd. and closed the office of Bharat Capital

Services Ltd. He has stated that he had personal conversation

with the Managing Director of the Company, the petitioner who

asked him to close the office and do the work online. He has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

stated that the amount invested by common people was

defalcated by Rakesh Mani (petitioner), and the other directors

of the company and it is from the same money that the

managing director, Rakesh Mani (petitioner), had formed a new

Company, namely, B.G.N. (Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multi State

Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.

28. In view of such categorical statement by

one of the accused in the case, this court cannot turn a blind eye

towards the fact that the petitioner, being the managing director

was well aware that the money was accepted by common people

in the name of Bharat Capital Services Ltd. However, the said

amount was siphoned to a new Company, namely, B.G.N.

(Bharat Gaurav Nirman) Multi State Housing Cooperative

Society Ltd., which was started at the same place where the

earlier office existed.

29. The aforesaid fact leads to one and only

one conclusion that there was a dishonest intention on the part

of the petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company

and in a fraudulent manner the amount was siphoned from one

company to another at the time when the maturity amount was

to be paid to poor investors.

30. This Court finds that such siphoning of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

money from one company to another was misappropriation

contrary to the purpose for which such money was entrusted to

the petitioners' Company.

31. The contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the company has not been made a

party can be answered from the fact that the the petitioner

being the Managing Director had acted beyond the statutory

limits and beyond the instructions of the regulatory bodies.

Therefore, in such circumstances, the making of the company

not a party would not prove fatal for the present case,

especially because the petitioner being the Managing Director

had siphoned the money from one Company to another at the

time of maturity and therefore, he was directly involved in such

activities and therefore, the prosecution against him cannot be

said to be bad.

32. It has been seen that the allegation is not

only against the company but specifically against the Managing

Director of the Company, who is the present petitioner. It is also

a settled law that omission on the part of the police in not

making the company an accused would not render the entire

prosecution case to be bad in law and if the learned trial court

feels that the Company can be made a party at an appropriate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61930 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026

stage under Section 319 CrPC/Section 358 of the BNSS, the

same can be done even at a later stage.

33. In view of the said observations, I do not

find any illegality in the order taking cognizance. The

application is thus dismissed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                19.02.2026.
Uploading Date          27.02.2026.
Transmission Date