Telangana High Court
Mr. Mohammed Aktar Hussain Alias Jun Aid vs The State Of Telangana on 11 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6911, 6503, 6719 and 7718 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition Nos.6503 and 6719 are filed under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS')
seeking anticipatory bail to accused Nos.11 and 12 respectively;
Criminal Petition No.6911 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.9 and 10
and Criminal Petition No.7718 of 2025 is filed by accused No.5
under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS seeking bail; in connection
with Crime No.63 of 2025 of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad,
registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103 read
with 3(5), 190 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS) and Section 4 read with 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence,
all the four criminal petitions are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Brief facts of case:
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.04.2025 at
around 03:00 hours, a complaint was received from L.W.1-
Mohammed Mudassir Uddin, stating that approximately at about
01:17 hours, he received a call from his father informing that his
brother Masiuddin was being attacked near Deluxe Medical Shop,
Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. On reaching the spot, L.W.1 found his
brother dead with multiple stab injuries. He further alleged that
accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused attacked and murdered his
brother with knives. He further stated that earlier on 23.03.2025,
during Ramadan, the same persons had physically assaulted his
brother. He also expressed suspicion that two other individuals,
namely, Junaid (accused No.11), who is the owner of Amjad
Sarees, Patel Market, and Shiraaj (accused No.10), who is the
owner of SK Footwear, conspired in the murder by engaging
accused No.1 to execute the crime. Based on the said complaint,
the present crime was registered for the aforementioned offences.
3. Heard Sri C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner
in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025, Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel, representing Sri Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for
the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6719 of 2025, Sri Mohd.
Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal
Petition Nos.6911 and 7718 of 2025 and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-
State.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.12 in
Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025 submitted that there are no
allegations against the petitioner to connect him with the present
crime. The prosecution has not attributed any role against the
petitioner either in the complaint or in the remand case diary. The
only allegation levelled against him is that he has supported the
other accused and the petitioner was not present at the scene of
offence. Hence, the ingredients under Section 103 of the BNS are
not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the
deceased is a rowdy sheeter and a rowdy sheet was opened against
him in Falaknama Police Station and the same is continuing. The
petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation
and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by
this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner/accused No.12.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.11 in Criminal
Petition No.6503 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner has not
committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present
crime only basing upon the alleged confession statement given by
accused No.9. He further submitted that the only allegation
levelled against the petitioner is that he has given moral support to
accused Nos.1 to 10 that if they commit the offence, he will take
care of their respective families and bring them out on bail. There
is no piece of evidence to connect the petitioner in the present
crime. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner/accused No.11.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 in
Crl.P.No.7718 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner has not
committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present
crime. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations
levelled against the petitioner and his name was not mentioned in
the complaint. However, basing upon the confession statement
given by accused No.1 only, he was implicated as accused No.5.
The petitioner does not have any enmity with the deceased and he
was not present at the scene of offence. The petitioner was
arrested on 16.04.2025 and since more than 80 days, he is in
judicial custody and the entire investigation has been completed
except filing of the charge sheet. He also submitted that the
Investigation Officer has taken the petitioner into police custody
and conducted investigation and further custodial interrogation is
not required and he is not having any criminal antecedents. He
further submitted that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by
doing small business and his entire family depending upon his
income only and he is having small children and old aged parents
and his physical presence is very much required to look after their
welfare. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10 in
Criminal Petition Nos.6911 of 2025 submitted that the petitioners
have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in
the present crime. The alleged incident has took place on the
intervening night of 13/14.04.2025 at 03.00 a.m. whereas the de
facto complainant lodged the complaint on 14.04.2025 at 01.17
p.m. and the de facto complainant has not given any reason for the
said delay. He further submitted that initially the crime was
registered against accused five persons only and subsequently
implicated the petitioners only basing upon the confession
statement given by accused No.5. He also submitted that either in
the complaint or in the Remand Case Diary-I, there are no
allegations levelled against the petitioners and they were not
arrayed as accused. He further submitted that the witnesses, who
were examined by the prosecution, have not stated anything
against the petitioners and the petitioners were not present at the
scene of offence. The petitioners were arrested on 28.04.2025 and
since more than 70 days they were in judicial custody. The
Investigation Officer has taken the petitioners to police custody and
conducted investigation, which shows that entire investigation has
been completed except filing of charge sheet. He further submitted
that no further custodial interrogation is required. The deceased is
a rowdy sheeter and he was accused in several other cases. The
petitioners are doing small business and their entire family
members are depending upon their income and they are also
having small children and old aged parents. The petitioners are
ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation if any and also
abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this
Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the
petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10.
8. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State
of Andhra Pradesh 1.
Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioners have committed the grave offence. In the
Remand Case Diary-I and II, the role of each petitioner was
specifically mentioned and also there are specific overt acts against
the petitioners to connect them with the present crime. He further
submitted that during the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to
8 specifically stated in their statements that accused Nos.9 and 10
have burnt the bloodstained clothes with an intention to disappear
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157
the evidence and to prevent the sniffer dogs to discover the
evidence He further submitted that according to the statement of
accused No.9, who is collecting rent on behalf of accused No.11,
the deceased was harassing accused No.11 and interfering in his
business and therefore, accused No.11 requested accused No.9 to
stop the activities of the deceased. Basing on the request of
accused No.11, accused No.9 contacted accused No.10 and they
both came to know that there was enmity between the deceased
and accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.9 and 10 have introduced
accused No.1 to accused No.11, who has encouraged accused No.1
to eliminate the deceased. He further submitted that accused
No.12 gave assurance that he will provide two of his henchmen to
carry out for commission of crime. There are specific allegations
levelled against accused No.5 that he along with accused Nos.1 to
4, 6 to 8 have committed the murder of the deceased and accused
No.5 was present at the scene of offence.
10. He also submitted that this is a case of criminal conspiracy
that the petitioners along with other accused have committed the
offence and during the course of investigation, the Investigation
Officers have obtained call data records of the petitioners, which
clearly establishes that there was a conversation between the
petitioners and other accused persons prior to the commission of
offence, during the occurrence of offence and after the offence. The
said call data clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioners
and other accused and coordination among them in commission of
offence. The investigation is under progress and at this stage, if
the petitioners are granted bail, they will interfere with the
investigation, tamper with the evidence and will influence the
witnesses. Hence, he prayed to dismiss all the bail petitions.
11. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and others vs. Ashish
Mishra @ Monu and another 2.
Reply Submissions:
12. Sri Krishna Prakash, learned counsel, representing
Sri C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
No.11 in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2025, submitted that in
Remand Case Diary-I, there are no specific allegations against
accused No.11, however, basing on the alleged confession
statement given by accused No.9, he was implicated in this case.
He further submitted that on perusal of the call date produced by
the prosecution, it was revealed that accused No.9 received three
calls from accused No.11 and those calls were also prior to the
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376
alleged incident and there is no telephonic conversation from the
date of the alleged offence. He further submitted that in respect of
criminal antecedents as alleged in the counter affidavit, those
crimes are pertaining to 2013, 2015 and 2024 and the said crimes
are nothing to do with the present crime, especially as per Section
49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The
pendency of other cases is not a ground to deny for grant of bail.
He further submitted that accused No.11 was implicated in the
present crime only basing on the alleged confession statement
given by the other accused and the same is not permissible under
law. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused
No.11.
13. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of
the Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. 3.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition
Nos.6911 and 7718 of 2025 by way of reply submitted that the
judgment which is relied upon by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in Jagjeet Singh supra is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the
Investigation Officer has not examined any shop owners and there
(2020) 11 SCC 648
is no prima facie evidence to connect the petitioners/accused Nos.9
and 10 with the present crime. He also submitted that accused
Nos.9 and 10 were implicated in the present case basing upon the
confession statement given by the other accused through Remand
Case Diary-II only and the same is not permissible under law.
Even according to the call data, three calls were received by
accused No.9 from accused No.11 prior to the alleged incident. He
further submitted that in respect of accused No.10 is concerned,
two outgoing calls and one incoming call was received from
accused No.1 and those calls are prior to the incident only. Hence,
he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 9 and
10.
15. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri
Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.12 in
Criminal Petition No.6719 of 2025 vehemently contended that the
petitioner was implicated in the present crime as accused No.12
basing on the confession statement given by the other accused and
there are no allegations against him either in the complaint or in
the Remand Case Diary-I and the prosecution made allegations
against the petitioner in Remand Case Diary-II only. The petitioner
is not present at the scene of offence and his involvement is
remote. Even according to the call data relied upon the
prosecution, the petitioner has received three calls from accused
Nos.9 to 11 and there are no specific overt acts against him to
connect with the present crime. Insofar as the allegation made by
the prosecution in the counter affidavit in respect of criminal
antecedents against the petitioner is concerned, in S.C.No.645 of
2010 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, and C.C.No.333 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, accused No.11 was
acquitted and in respect of C.C.No.1136 of 2008 on the file of the
XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is
concerned, the said case was ended pursuant to the Lok Adalat
Award dated 07.01.2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to
cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions,
which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for
grant of anticipatory bail.
Analysis:
16. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and on perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the de facto complainant, who is none other
than the own brother of the deceased, lodged a complaint on
14.04.2025. In the said complaint, he specifically mentioned that
accused Nos.1 to 3 and others attacked his brother and stabbed
him with knives and committed murder. It is further stated in the
complaint that he suspects accused Nos.10 and 11 and as a result
of their conspiracy, the other accused committed the brutal murder
of his brother. Basing on the said complaint, Rein Bazar Police
Station, registered Crime No.63 of 2025 for the offences under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with 3(5), 190 and 61(2) of the
BNS and Section 4 read with 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The
police arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 on 15.04.2025 and
accused No.5 was arrested on 16.04.2025 and they were produced
before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody. In
the Remand Case Diary-I and II, the role of each accused was
specifically mentioned. The Investigating Officer after taking
custodial interrogation of accused Nos.1 to 8, arrested accused
No.9 and 10 on 28.04.29025 and they were produced before the
concerned Court for judicial custody. In the Remand Case Diary-II,
the role of accused No.9 to 12 has been specifically mentioned.
The allegation levelled against accused Nos.1 to 8 is that they have
murdered the deceased on the intervening night of 13/14.04.2025.
In the statement of accused No.5, the role of accused Nos.9 and 10
has been elicited. Similarly, accused Nos.9 and 10 stated in their
statements the role of accused Nos.11 and 12. The record further
reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners
that they conspired together and eliminated the deceased and each
of them has played their role in committing the murder. The
specific allegation against accused No.5 is that he is having rivalry
with the deceased and to take revenge against him, he joined with
accused No.1. Likewise, accused Nos.2 and 5 have joined with
accused No.3 for murdering the deceased and accused Nos.3, 4
and 6 arranged the knives to accused Nos.1 to 4.
17. The record further reveals that accused Nos.1 to 10
maintained a close watch on the deceased movements. On
13.04.2025 at 11.00 p.m., all the accused persons formed an
unlawful assembly at Dabeerpura fly over, armed with knives and
thereafter, went to the house of accused No.4 at Farhath Nagar and
waited for the deceased to come towards Dabeerpura bridge till
11.30 p.m., however, the deceased did not turn up. At that stage,
the accused persons went to the house of accused No.3 situated
near Dabeerpura to have dinner. At that time, accused No.2 made
a phone call to accused No.3, who is none other than his brother,
informed that the deceased was available beside Delux medical
shop and accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offence at the
intervening night of 13/14.04.2025 at 03.00 hours.
18. The Investigating Officer specifically mentioned about the role
of accused Nos.9 and 10 and other accused in the Remand Case
Diary I and II. The specific allegation levelled against the
petitioners is that there is conspiracy between the petitioners and
other accused and there is call conversations among the accused
persons prior to the commission of the offence, at the time of the
offence and after the offence.
19. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel as well as learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 were implicated in the present
crime, only basing on the confession statement given by the other
accused, which cannot be taken into consideration strongly relying
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the said judgment held that a confession made by an
accused, particularly before the police, is inadmissible in evidence
due to the bar under Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act, and
thus cannot be relied upon even at the stage of anticipatory or
regular bail. For a confession to be considered under Section 30, it
must be relevant, admissible, duly proved against the maker, and
both the maker and co-accused must be jointly tried for the same
offence. Such a confession can only be used, at most, as a rule of
prudence to support other independent evidence during trial and
not at the bail stage. Furthermore, any statement made by an
accused implicating another co-accused, whether confessional or
merely an admission, cannot be used against the co-accused due
to the principle that admissions are only admissible against their
maker, and no exception under the Evidence Act allows their use
against a co-accused, is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case, since the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and the case on hand pertains to heinous
crime committed against the deceased as well as the society,
especially the specific case of the prosecution is that the
petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 were not implicated as accused
and basing upon the statements of other accused, the role of the
petitioners and specific overt acts against the petitioners were
elicited in the Remand Case Diary-I and II, and further the call
data records between the accused persons prior to the commission
of the offence and after the offence reveals that there is conspiracy
between the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 12 and other accused, as
a result of their conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the
brutal murder of the deceased.
20. Similarly, the judgment which was relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners/accused No.9 and 10 in Crl.R.C.No.58
of 2021 passed by this Court dated 03.09.2021 is also not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since
accused No.4 questioning the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2020
seeking to discharge him for the alleged offences on the file of II
Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, he filed Crl.R.C.No.58 of
2021 and the same was allowed and accused No.4 has discharged.
21. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.6503 of 2025 that the name of accused No.11
was not mentioned either in the complaint or in the Remand Case
Diary-I and his name was included in the Remand Case Diary-II
basing upon the confessional statement given by accused No.9 and
the same is not permissible under law and relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari supra is
concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the High Court's
decision to grant bail to the accused, Vikram Singh, despite the
seriousness of the offence under Section 302 read with other IPC
provisions and the fact that multiple criminal cases were pending
against him and the Court noted that the main prosecution
statement, recorded after 50 days, was contested as unreliable,
and the accused was not named in the initial FIR or early witness
statements, however, subsequent statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. mentioned his involvement and the Court found no
illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind in the High
Court's order and concluded that mere gravity of offence or past
cases cannot be sole grounds for denying bail, hence, the appeal
challenging the bail was dismissed, and the same is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, since the name
of accused No.11 was mentioned in the complaint given by the de
facto complainant/LW.1 and prima facie, accused No.11 has
modus operandi, as he was harassed by the deceased, who was
interfering with his business activities, and hence, he contacted
accused No.9, who in turn, introduced accused No.1 to accused
No.11 in order to eliminate the deceased and also there is specific
allegation levelled against accused No.11 in the commission of the
offence.
22. Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel and
learned counsel for the petitioners that mere conversation among
the accused persons is not a ground to implicate the accused Nos.9
to 12, especially the prosecution has not placed any evidence that
telephonic conversation is in respect of the alleged offence.
Whether the conversation between the petitioners and other
accused is in connection with the crime or not, is a triable issue
and the same will come into light during the course of investigation
or trial and this Court is of the considered view that such stage is
not yet reached.
23. It is already stated supra, there are specific allegations
levelled against accused Nos.10 and 11 in the complaint lodged by
the de facto complainant. Similarly, there are specific allegations
levelled against accused Nos.9 and 12 in respect of their role and
conspiracy among the accused persons and the record discloses
that there is a clear link among the accused persons prior to the
date of incident.
24. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and a rowdy
sheet was opened against him at Falaknama Police Station and the
deceased harassed the shop owners in Patel Market and collected
the amounts by threatening them and the petitioners have not
committed the offence, however, the petitioners were falsely
implicated in the present crime is concerned, whether the
petitioners were falsely implicated or not will come into light upon
completion of investigation and the charge sheet has also not been
filed.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.11 in
Crl.P.No.6503 of 2025 submitted that accused No.11 is the owner
of five (5) shops only, however, the prosecution alleged that he is
owner of 150 shops and the same is not true and correct and he
was falsely implicated in the present crime solely basing upon the
confessional statement of the petitioner/accused No.9. It is
already stated supra, there is a specific allegation against accused
Nos.1 to 8 that they committed the murder and they were present
at the scene of offence, whereas accused Nos.9 and 10 has burnt
the blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 to 8 in order to destroy
the evidence and the specific allegations levelled against accused
No.11 is that he had initiated the said offence due to the enmity
between the deceased and him on collection of rent amounts from
shop owners.
26. It is relevant to mention that in State of U.P. through CBI v.
Amarmani Tripathi 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated on
the well-settled principles governing the grant or refusal of bail.
The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider several
factors, such as the prima facie involvement of the accused, nature
and gravity of the offence, likelihood of absconding or tampering
with evidence, and the accused's conduct and background. Vague
(2005) 8 SCC 21
apprehensions are not sufficient to deny bail, but credible material
showing the accused's intent to obstruct justice can justify refusal.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the High Court erred
in granting bail to Amarmani Tripathi, as there was substantial
material indicating his involvement in tampering with evidence,
threatening witnesses, and interfering with the investigation. The
Court noted that he tried to mislead the probe by fabricating
evidence and bribing key witnesses. As for Madhumani, although
she lacked a criminal history and had not overtly interfered with
the investigation, her abscondence and the risk of her continuing
her husband's acts of manipulation justified cancellation of her
bail as well. The Court clarified that references to "evidence"
pertained only to the material collected during the investigation
and would not influence the trial Court.
27. Similarly, in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the well-established
principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that each case
must be evaluated on its own merits with a judicious exercise of
discretion. The Court observed that relevant considerations include
the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the
evidence, peculiar circumstances relating to the accused, the
(2018) 12 SCC 129
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, potential tampering
with evidence or witnesses, and the overall impact on society.
Significantly, the Court relied on and reaffirmed the principles laid
down in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, thereby reiterating the
legal position that vague or isolated grounds cannot justify bail
where there is sufficient material to show possible interference with
the investigation or trial. In the present case, although the
Sessions Court had granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav citing
discrepancies in CCTV footage and lack of direct role attribution,
the Supreme Court noted that this ignored the weight of evidence,
including statements of multiple eyewitnesses and the recovery of
incriminating material. The judgment makes clear that bail cannot
be granted by overlooking credible material and that courts must
record reasoned findings even at the pre-trial stage, guided by the
holistic principles already laid down in earlier precedents such as
Amarmani Tripathi.
28. It is already stated supra, the petitioners were implicated as
accused basing upon the confessional statement given by the other
accused, the role of the each petitioner was elicited in the Remand
Case Diary-I and II, and there are specific overt acts against them.
Further, as per the call data records between the accused persons
prior to the commission of the offence and after the offence reveal
that there is conspiracy between the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to
12 and other accused, as a result of their conspiracy, accused
Nos.1 to 8 have committed the brutal murder of the deceased,
basing upon this, the petitioners were implicated as accused in the
present crime.
29. In the case on hand, the prosecution specifically pleaded in
their counter affidavit that due to fear of the accused persons, the
eye witnesses and other witnesses are not coming forward to give
statements under Section 183 of the BNSS and also for Test
Identification Parade. Even according to the prosecution, accused
Nos.5, 10, 11 and 12 are having criminal antecedents. At this
stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is a serious
threat on the de facto complainant as well as other witnesses. The
record reveals that there is specific role attributed against each of
the petitioners and they share a common intention to eliminate the
deceased as they all have rivalry with the deceased. Even
according to the prosecution, the investigation is under progress
and the charge sheet has not been filed.
30. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the
gravity of the offence, especially when the investigation is under
progress as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as mentioned supra, this Court is not inclined to grant
regular bail in favour of accused Nos.5, 9 and 10 and anticipatory
bail in favour of accused Nos.11 and 12.
31. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 11.07.2025
mar/pgp
