Date Of Decision:17.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision:17.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                                      2026:HHC:7850




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                                              Cr. MP (M) No. 198 of 2026




                                                                             .
                                                       Date of Decision:17.03.2026





    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ranjit Singh                                                              ...Petitioner
                                            Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                                             ...Respondent
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.




                                                 of
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the petitioner          :             Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
                       rt
    For the respondents:                          Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal
                                                  Panwar,    Additional   Advocate
                                                  Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan &

                                                  Mr.   Anish    Banshtu,   Deputy
                                                  Advocates General.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner, namely Ranjit Singh, who is behind the

bars since14.10.2025, has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.193 of

2025, dated 14.10.2025, under Sections 65(2), 126(2), 351(2) of

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act,

registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal

Pradesh.

2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant

proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and

1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:7850

Constable Sunil Kumar No.452 has come present with the record.

Record perused and returned.

.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that

on 14.10.2025, victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her

identity) aged 12 years, came present at police Station, Barmana,

District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh alongwith her parents for filing

of
complaint against bail petitioner. Victim/prosecutrix, while claiming

herself to be studying in Class-7th, alleged that two months back
rt
while she alongwith her younger brother was going to school, bail

petitioner stopped her path and slapped his brother. She alleged

that bail petitioner forced her brother to run away from the place

and thereafter, he sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She

further alleged that when she started weeping, bail petitioner kept

knife on her neck and extended threats that in case she discloses

this incident to anyone, he would eliminate her as well as her

parents. She alleged that on account of fear, she was unable to

disclose aforesaid incident to anybody. She alleged that on 10th

October, 2025 when she was going to school, bail petitioner again

attempted to sexually assault her, however she alongwith her

brother succeeded in fleeing from that place and disclosed the

entire incident to her parents. In the afore background, FIR, as

detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and

since then he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:7850

complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail

petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings

.

for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

for the reason that he had lodged complaint against the father of

of
the victim/prosecutrix for his having indulged in animal fur trade.

He contends that otherwise also, there is litigation interse his family
rt
as well as family of the victim/prosecutrix. While making this Court

peruse statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section

180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that version put forth by the victim/prosecutrix with

regard to her being sexually assaulted against her wishes is totally

false. He states that at first instance victim/prosecutrix never

disclosed to the police that he had brought the incident to the

notice of her teacher, but subsequently, while getting her statement

recorded under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, she

claimed that she had disclosed the incident to her teacher, who

subsequently disclosed the same to her parents. He further states

that prosecution has nowhere associated the brother of the

victim/prosecutrix in the investigation, who had been allegedly

accompanying the victim/prosecutrix at the time of first incident as

well as second incident. He further contends that medical evidence

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:7850

adduced on record nowhere indicates sexual assault, if any,

committed by the bail petitioner and as such, petitioner, who has

.

been falsely implicated, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the

challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned

Additional Advocate General, submits that though nothing remains

of
to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the

gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does
rt
not deserve any leniency. He states that statement of the

victim/prosecutrix is sufficient to conclude guilt of the accused,

especially under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He states that

though medical evidence adduced on record does not support the

case of the prosecution as far as allegation of sexual assault is

concerned, but certainly categorical statement of the victim/

prosecutrix that her passage was repeatedly obstructed by the bail

petitioner and she was repeatedly extended threats to do away

with her life is sufficient to hold accused guilty of his having

committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO

Act. He states that since petitioner is involved in a heinous crime,

coupled with the fact that statement of the victim/prosecutrix is yet

to be recorded, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the

petitioner on bail, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail,

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:7850

may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm the

victim/ prosecutrix.

.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record, this Court finds that first

incident of alleged sexual assault upon the victim/prosecutrix was

committed two months prior to lodging of the FIR. Though,

of
victim/prosecutrix has attempted to render explanation qua the

delay in lodging FIR by stating that since she was under constant
rt
fear, she was unable to disclose this incident to her parents.

However, there is no explanation that what prevented her minor

brother, who allegedly, at the time of first incident, was slapped by

the petitioner, failed to inform his parents with regard to indecent

behaviour of bail petitioner as well as wrongful confinement of the

victim/prosecutrix. Similarly, brother of the victim/prosecutrix, aged

8 years, was again present at the time of second incident allegedly

happened on 10th October, 2025, but yet police chose not to record

his statement.

7. Interestingly, victim/prosecutrix in her initial statement

given to the police under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,

nowhere stated that she had brought factum of first incident to the

knowledge of teacher, but in her subsequent statement given to

the Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya

Sanhita, she claimed that she had brought aforesaid incident to the

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:7850

knowledge of her teacher, who subsequently disclosed the same to

her parents. However, if the statement of the teacher recorded

.

under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, nowhere suggests

that the victim/prosecutrix had specifically disclosed the factum

with regard to her being subjected to sexual assault by the

petitioner two months prior to lodging of the FIR, rather teacher

of
statement suggests that when he asked prosecutrix that why she

does not complete her home work, she stated that she is troubled
rt
by her neighbour. She never disclosed that she was subjected to

forcible sexual assault by bail petitioner. School teacher in his

statement recorded under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

stated that after having noticed aforesaid complaint of the

prosecutrix, he advised her to report the matter to her parents.

There is nothing in the statement of the teacher suggestive of the

fact that second incident allegedly happened on 10th October, 2025

was also brought to his notice. Rather as per own statement of the

victim/prosecutirx she herself brought second incident to the notice

of her parents, whereafter she alongwith her parents came to

police Station for lodging the report.

8. No doubt, statement of the prosecutrix, who is

admittedly 12 years old, cannot be discarded easily, but same time

this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is delay of more

than two months in lodging the FIR. First incident had allegedly

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:7850

happened two months prior to lodging of the FIR. At the time of

both the incidents, younger brother of the prosecutrix was with her.

.

As per statement of the prosecutrix, at the time of first incident, bail

petitioner slapped his brother and made him to run away from the

spot, but there is no explanation that why and for what reason

younger brother of the prosecutrix failed to report the matter with

of
regard to abduction and wrongful confinement of her sister to her

parents. If the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under
rt
Section 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita are read in

conjunction, they clearly suggest that even after the first incident

bail petitioner kept on troubling her, but at no point of time prior to

lodging of the FIR, she made any attempt either to report the

matter to her parents or school authorities.

9. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies

in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180

and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, coupled with the fact that there

is delay of two months in lodging the FIR. Most importantly,

medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere

suggests sexual assault if any, upon the prosecutrix. Neither any

external or internal injury has been found nor there is specific

report with regard to forcible attempt at the behest of the petitioner

to sexually assault the prosecutrix. No doubt, petitioner is accused

of heinous crime punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:7850

but guilt, if any, of him is yet to be established on record by

leading cogent and convincing evidence.

.

10. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be

considered and decided by learned court below in totality of facts

and evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having

taken note of aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court is

of
persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner

for grant of bail, especially when he has already suffered for more
rt
than five months.

11. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled The State

of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh and another, 2026 Supreme(SC)

46, taking note of blind and misuse of POCSO Act, has proceeded

to issue certain guidelines or directions, which reads as under:

” 19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on

grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby
lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also

because it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ
Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well-
intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the
most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the
children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an
instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good
intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting
revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of
inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding
this situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim
societal chasm – on the one end children are silenced by fear

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:7850

and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning
thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the
other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and

.

monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their

advantage. The impugned judgment is one amongst many
where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where

the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall
under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are
numerous instances where this law is used by families in

of
opposition to relationships between young people. In Satish
alias Chand v. State of U.P.32, the High Court, noted that on few
occasions concern had been expressed by the Court with
rt
respect to application of the Act on consenting adolescence
when it comes to consensual relationships between teenagers,

four factors have been highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts
to consider:

“A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its
individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the

relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully
examined.

B. Consider Victim’s Statement: The statement of the alleged

victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship is

consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be
factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of

a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful
imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the
protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in
certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an important
factor.

D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely,
ensuring that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently
harm the very individuals it is meant to protect.” Crl.Misc.Bail
Appl.No.18596 of 2024 [See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v.
State of U.P.]33 The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT
of Delhi34 the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:7850

cases filed at the behest of a girl’s family objecting to romantic
involvement with a young boy have become common place and
consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein,

.

reference is also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court35,

where the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of
the prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact that she had left

home of her own accord observed that the application deserved
consideration.

This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the

of
misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer
to Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P36, where this Court lamented
rt
the use of these Sections without specific instances or relevant
details, among other cases. It is also to be stated though that no

amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this
ever-widening gap. The first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e.,
the body that translates grievance into action and is the
gatekeeper of justice at the point of 2023: AHC : 204171 2024:

DHC: 6100 Jayantibhai Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat 2018
SCC Online Guj. 1223 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 entry. When
it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the

advocate is profound – to examine the allegations with

detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint
when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in
litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior motive is sought to

be agitated under the guise of seeking protection of the law. It is
only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the
legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being
twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tempers aggression with
calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party
from unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term
consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including
adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a principled
stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system
from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as
enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:7850

profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine
disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a
means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense,

.

the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is

indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded
to above widens. Society also must match institutional reform

with moral awakening. The intent and object of these legislations
must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a
complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to

of
the opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the
application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and
courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out.
rt
Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-
luster without this deeper change.

We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts noting
the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat in line
with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as also its
progenitors.

Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken
of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be
circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to

consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this

menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause
exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold
of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of

those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle
scores etc.

12. In the afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has

categorically held that statement of the alleged victim should be

given due consideration, but in case relationship is consensual and

based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions

regarding bail and prosecution. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that each case should be evaluated on its individual

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS

12 2026:HHC:7850

facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the

intentions of both parties should be carefully examined. While

.

stating that Courts should use their discretion wisely, Hon’ble

Apex Court held that court should ensure that the application of

POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is

meant to protect.

of

13. In the instant case, besides there being major

contradictions in the statements of the victim/prosecutrix recorded
rt
under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, her

version of having informed the school teacher is also highly

doubtful on account of the statement made by the school teacher

under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Though, teacher in

his statement given to the police admitted that he was informed

with regard to trouble being caused to the victim/prosecutrix by the

prosecutrix, but he specifically denied factum with regard to his

having informed act of sexual assault, if any, committed by the

petitioner. He also disputed that he after having heard the

prosecutrix had reported the matter to her parents. Otherwise also,

as per own statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under

Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, she had brought alleged

both the incidents to her parents after occurrence of 10th October,

2025.

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS

13 2026:HHC:7850

14. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in

catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his

.

/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law and as such, this

Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for

indefinite period during the trial, especially when his/her guilt is yet

to be proved. It has further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

of
aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until

found guilty.

15.
rt Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,

Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on

6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of

criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning

thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for

grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was

participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing

when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court

further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating

officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of

being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to

consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the

aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS

14 2026:HHC:7850

2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is
the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

However, there are instances in our criminal law where

.

a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with

regard to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that

the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a
person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home
(whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic

of
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the
result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do
any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our
society.

rt

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is
entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case
but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has

been circumscribed by a large number of decisions
rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person
is the right thing to do on the facts and in the

circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need
to be considered is whether the accused was arrested
during investigations when that person perhaps has
the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or

influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does
not find it necessary to arrest an accused person

during investigations, a strong case should be made
out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to
ascertain whether the accused was participating in the

investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating
officer and was not absconding or not appearing
when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if
an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer
or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear
of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge
would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is
also necessary for the judge to consider whether the
accused is a first-time offender or has been accused
of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences
and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an
extremely important factor and even Parliament has
taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation
to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:7850

been taken by Parliament by inserting Section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be
adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application

.

for remanding a suspect or an accused person to

police custody or judicial custody. There are several
reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might
be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution

and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in
prisons, leading to social and other problems as
noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in
1382 Prisons

of

16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus

Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases
rt
49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny

bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the

court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by

the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative.

17. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017)

5 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

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:7850

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

of
bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation,

punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and
rt
witnesses being influenced.

19. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case

for himself. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in

the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount

each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the

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 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; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.

(e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him.

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS

17 2026:HHC:7850

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 petition alone. The petition

of
stands accordingly disposed of.

22. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order
rt
downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall

not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the

order from the High Court website or otherwise.

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
March 17,2026

(shankar)

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS