Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bal Krishan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 August, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP(M) No. 1357 of 2026
.
Decided on: 05.08.2026
________________________________________________________
Bal Krishan ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
....Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram:
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner rt : Mr. Ranbir Rathore & Mr. Tarun K.
Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocates
General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan &
Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.
SI Inderjeet, PS Sadar, District
Hamirpur, HP, present in person
along with record.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Bail petitioner Bal Krishan, who is behind bars since
02.06.2025, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of
regular bail in case FIR No.0052 of 2023, dated 15.03.2023, registered
at Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, under
Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act (in short “ND & PS Act”).
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
2
2. Pursuant to order dated 23.07.2026, respondent-State
has filed status report and SI Inderjeet has come present with record.
.
Record perused and returned.
3. Close security of record/status report reveals that on
15.03.2023, police patrolling party, which was on checking duty at
Tauni Devi Bazaar, at about 7:30 PM, received secret information from
of
reliable source that one Prince, was transporting heroin, i.e., chitta, in a
taxi bearing registration number HP-01H-2399 along with his
associates and was enroute from Hamirpur towards Tauni Devi. After
rt
the receipt of the aforesaid information, police constituted a raiding
team and laid a naka near the reported location. At about 10:00 PM,
the suspected taxi bearing registration number HP-01H-2399 was
intercepted. The occupants of the vehicle disclosed their names as
Prince (driver), Sunil Kumar @ Guglu, Anil Kumar @ Anku, and Rajesh
Kumar @ Sonu. Allegedly, police, after having associated independent
witnesses, recovered 7.45 grams of chitta from the dashboard of the
vehicle. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on
record qua possession of the aforesaid contraband, police, after having
completed necessary codal formalities, lodged an FIR and arrested the
occupants. However, the accused, from whose conscious possession
contraband was recovered, stand enlarged on bail. Co-accused, from
whose conscious possession contraband was recovered, allegedly
disclosed to the police that they were provided money by Balkrishan,
i.e. petitioner herein, for purchasing chitta from Ambala. In the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
3
aforesaid background, petitioner also came to be named in the FIR,
and he is behind bars since 02.06.2025.
.
4. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law
and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner
has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of
regular bail.
of
5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,
while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the
competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be
rt
recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of
offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve
any leniency. Mr. Panwar, states that there is overwhelming evidence
adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is a drug
peddler, who is selling the contraband in various parts of the State of
HP. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, he invited attention of
this Court to the status report filed by the police to state that in the past,
five cases under ND & PS Act stand registered against the petitioner,
and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only
flee from justice but may again indulge in these activities.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record, this Court finds that contraband never
came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner,
rather, the same was recovered from the conscious possession of co-
accused, namely Prince, Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, and Rajesh Kumar,
who allegedly disclosed that money was given to them by the present
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
4
bail petitioner for buying chitta from Ambala. On the basis of the
aforesaid disclosure statement made by the co-accused, petitioner also
.
came to be named in the FIR. Though the co-accused, from whose
conscious possession contraband was recovered, stand enlarged on
bail, but the petitioner is still behind bars on the ground that in the past,
five cases stand registered against him.
of
7. Question, which needs to be determined in the case at
hand, is that “whether the petitioner could have been arrested
solely on the basis of a disclosure statement, if any, made by a
rt
co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act?”
8. Hon’ble Apex Court in case Tofan Singh v. State of
Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, has categorically held that
disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the ND &
PS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional
statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act.
Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional
statement made before an officer designated under section 42
or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the
NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with
section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards,
would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees
contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
156.The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow
Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the
reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do
not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
5judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these
judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these
judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us.
.
157.On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this
judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal arecorrect in law.
158.We answer the reference by stating:
(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under
of
section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the
meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of
which any confessional statement made to them would
be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the
rt Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order
to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the
NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in
the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”
9. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is fundamental
right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for
delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the bail
petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial. Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat,
(2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of
right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:-
“11. This Court has consistently recognized the right of the accused
for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in
violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union
of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA,
have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail
for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion
of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
6Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005)
11 SCC 569).
.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, having taken note of
its various judgments passed in the past, proceeded to conclude that if
the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has
of
no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an
accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
rt
Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not
oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is
serious. Most importantly, in the afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as
under:
“15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19
of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being
referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of
any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis onall working days and have precedence over the trial of any other
case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by
the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.
16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion to consider
the long incarceration and at the same time the effect of Section 43-
D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under : (SCC p. 722, para 17)“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
7oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,both
the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers.
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings,the
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt downwhere there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribedof
sentence. Such an approach would safe-guard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being
used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
rt
17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged
incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court,
which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to
several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court
expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the
accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within
specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply:
“We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each
special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the
rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would
apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provisioncontained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the
Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For
example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are
dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the
rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in
these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less
and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial.
Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this
Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of
Section 309 of the Code.”
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
8
18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in
everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing
.
with delinquents,juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past
and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of
factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime.
Those factors may be social and economic, maybe, the result of
value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of
circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of
affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
of
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article
rt
21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting
agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused
to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby
violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement
Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, while placing reliance upon
its earlier judgments rendered in number of cases, especially Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), again reiterated that right to speedy trial
is a fundamental right of an accused and infraction thereof amounts to
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the
judgment passed in Manish Sisodia case read as under:
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
9
“50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the
right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights,
the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given.
due weightage to this factor.
51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an
application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra wherein the accused was prosecuted
under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from theof
judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon
rt
(I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation. The Court observed thus:
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protectthe fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy
trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then
the State or any other prosecuting agency should notoppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitutionapplies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial
courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed
by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240.
We quote:
“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants
reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord
Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the
prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the,::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
10magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are
merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”
.
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the
trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in
of
matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On
account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and
rt
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time
that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the
principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.
54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI
matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves
thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of
digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the
remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near
future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an
unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of
trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the
prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an
offence should not be permitted to become punishment without
trial.”
12. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1945, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a
case registered under Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, enlarged the accused on bail on the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
11
ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Relevant para of the
afore judgment is reproduced herein below:
.
“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here
that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the
material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus wasmore on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s
case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made
out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have anyof
hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution
may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider
the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the
rt
rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case
like the present case where there are stringent conditions for
the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holdsgood with only modification that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that
once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannotdecline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in
deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of our Constitution.”
13. Reliance is also placed upon latest judgment dated
28.8.2024, passed in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through The
Directorate of Enforcement, (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024), wherein having taken note of the inordinate
delay in conclusion of trial, Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to enlarge
the accused on bail. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:
“12. Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in
Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs
Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024
dated 30.07.2024) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
12of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693, where
the accused has already been in custody for a considerable
number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion.
of trial within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA
can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty. Further,
Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) reiterated the holding in JavedGulam Nabi Sheikh (Supra), that keeping persons behind the
bars for unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy
completion of trial would deprive the fundamental right ofof
persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that
prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty ought
not to be permitted to become the punishment without trial. In
rt
fact, Manish Sisodia (II) (Supra) reiterated the holding in
Manish Sisodia (I) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement(judgment dated 30.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of
2023) where it was held as under:-
“28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of
an offence should not become punishment without trial. If
the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the
prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decidedwithin a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an
economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate
these cases with those punishable with death,imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for
ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where
100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The
allegations have to be established and proven. The right
to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a
long period, depending on the nature of the allegations,
should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section
45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional
mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
13person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he
be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not
proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused,.
the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be
guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be
truer where the trial would take years.”
It is in this background that Section 45 of PMLA needs to be
understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher constitutional
right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said
of
higher constitutional edict.”
14. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court having
rt
taken note of all judgments passed in recent times, categorically held
that bail is rule and jail is an exception. If all the judgments taken note
herein above are read in conjunction, Hon’ble Apex Court has
categorically held that court while considering prayer for grant of bail
may not be impressed with the arguments advanced by the
prosecution that charge against the person seeking bail is serious, but
in case, Court finds that on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of
trial, fundamental right of speedy trial is being violated, it should
proceed to grant bail.
15. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied
in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or
refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his
trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise
also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature
of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
14
punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
.
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on
6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for
indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has
of
been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment
that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
17. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5
rt
SCC 218, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to
secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to
be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be
granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to
take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart
from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of
evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which
conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
18. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus
Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down
various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz.
prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment
involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being
influenced.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
15
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail-petitioner has carved out a case
.
for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the bail-
petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to
his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two local
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief
of
Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:
a. He shall make himself available for the purpose
of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend
the trial Court on each and every date of hearing
rt
and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek
exemption from appearance by filing appropriate
application;
b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case
in any manner whatsoever;
c. He shall not make any inducement, threat or
promises to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police
Officer; andd. He shall not leave the territory of India without
the prior permission of the Court.
e. He shall surrender his passport, if any, before
the investigating agency.
20. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or
violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating
agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
21. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain
confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands
accordingly disposed of.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
16
22. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the
learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner
.
and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the
downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained
from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma)
of
Judge
August 05, 2026
(sunil)
rt
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:34:50 :::CIS
