2025 INSC 1468

Page 1 of 15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2025

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8736 OF 2025)

RAJESH UPADHAYAY …Appellant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant-original complainant

has questioned judgment and order dated 28.08.2024

of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature

at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2024,

whereby the High Court suspended the sentence

imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on

bail during the pendency of the Appeal.

2.1 Respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto

came to be convicted under Section 302 read with

Page 2 of 15

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with

imposition of fine of ₹20,000/-, by learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, 19

th

Rohtas in Sessions

Trial No.101 of 2022. The respondent No.2 was further

convicted for the offence under Sections 342/149, IPC

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of

one year and to pay fine of ₹500/-. In respect of

conviction under Sections 147 and 504/149, IPC,

sentence of one year for each offence and fine of ₹500

and ₹1,000/- respectively was imposed.

2.2 Respondent No.2 came to be

convicted also for the offence under Section 148, IPC,

for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

for a term of two years with fine of ₹1,000/-.

Conviction was also recorded by the Sessions Court

under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in respect

thereof respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to

pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, with default clause.

3. The appellant-informant’s father

named Krishna Behari Upadhyay was murdered. As

per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2021 at about 4.30

p.m., the appellant along with his father Krishna

Behari Upadhyay reached at Mahavir temple of the

village to light ‘Diya’ and to do ‘Arti’. At that time, the

Page 3 of 15

accused persons and the co-villagers Bashishthha

Singh alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar,

Raghunandan Kumar and Sheo Narayan Mahto-

respondent No.2 herein wielding the arms and

weapons reached, at the temple. Hurling abuses, all

of them surrounded the appellant and his father,

telling said Krishna Behari Upadhyay that he was not

performing Puja and was engaging in politics.

3.1 It is the further case of the prosecution

that Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay tried to close the

main gate of the temple, but the accused persons

pushed the gate and made a forcible entry inside the

temple. Ajit Singh and Raghunandan Kumar caught

hold of Krishna Behari Upadhyay and Munna Singh is

stated to have fired at him with a revolver. It was

stated respondent No.2 also had a country-made

pistol with him and that he as well as another Rajesh

Mehto alias Rajesh Kumar were instigatively uttering

that the Pandit should be killed as he was excessively

indulging in politics. Because of gun fire shots,

Krishna Behari Upadhyay fell down inside the temple

premises and was in a pool of blood.

3.2 The appellant somehow managed to

flee away from the place and informed his family

members. Om Prakash Tiwari and Ritesh Mukhia who

were the family members, as well as the other

Page 4 of 15

co-villagers reached at the place of the offence. They

saw Munna Singh, Ajit Kumar, Naga Kumar,

Raghunandan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Mahto alias

Rajesh as also respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto

running away in the Eastern direction.

3.3 Upon being taken to the hospital,

Krishna Behari Upadhyay was declared dead. A

Fardbeyan was given by the appellant on 11.12.2021,

pursuant to which the police registered the First

Information Report No.96 of 2021 for the offences

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 504, 506, 302

and 120 (B), IPC, and for the offence under Section 27

of the Arms Act against the six persons, including

respondent No.2. On 02.02.2022, respondent No.2

surrendered before the Trial Court. Chargesheet

No.9 of 2022 was filed on 28.03.2022.

3.4 The Sessions Court convicted and

sentenced respondent No.2 for the offences as

mentioned above. In the appeal proceedings before

the High Court, respondent No.2 filed an application

praying for suspension of sentence, which was

allowed by the High Court and during the pendency

of the appeal, respondent No.2 was ordered to be

released on bail, suspending the sentence imposed

on him.

Page 5 of 15

3.5 The High Court took the view that the

role attributed to respondent No.2 in the incident was

of instigation, therefore, the sentence could be

suspended. Accordingly to the High Court, the First

Information Report (FIR) was sent to the Magistrate’s

court after three days and further that the original

copy of the inquest report was not produced, which,

stated the High Court, were also the factors entitling

respondent No.2-the convict to be released on bail

during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Adarsh

Kumar Tiwari for the appellant and Mr. Anshul

Narayan, learned additional standing counsel for the

respondent-State of Bihar.

5. There is no escape from the fact that

respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read

with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine.

He is also convicted for the offence under the Arms

Act. Respondent No.2 had undergone incarceration

so far for three years. His appeal has been awaiting

final outcome.

5.1. In order to assess the merits and

justification or otherwise of the impugned order of the

High Court whereby the High Court thought it fit to

Page 6 of 15

suspend the sentence imposed on respondent No.2

herein, it would be worthwhile to notice the total

scenario of the events in the commission of the crime

as well as relevant to consider the role and the nature

of participation of respondent No.2.

5.2. The nature of role played by

respondent No.2 was the aspect weighed with the

High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to

him, the High Court was further persuaded itself to

justify the suspension of sentence of respondent No.2

on the ground inter alia that that the FIR was sent to

the Magistrate’s court after a gap of three days and

that the original copy of the inquest report was not

produced.

5.3 At the outset, it may be observed that

the High Court was in evident error in resting upon

the said two counts. Delay of three days in sending

the copy of the FIR to the court of the Magistrate and

the non-production of original copy of the inquest

report could be said to be illogical considerations

applied by the High Court, insofar as those aspects

do not have any bearing on the credence of the

prosecution’s case which was otherwise established

on evidence before the Trial Court. These

considerations could not have guided the application

of mind of the High Court.

Page 7 of 15

5.4 The High Court was swayed away to

observe that the role played by respondent No.2 in

the incident was of instigation only. It may be true that

respondent No.2 was instigator when the deceased

Krishna Behari Upadhyay was shot at, however, it is

revealed from the record and the evidence, which the

High Court has also accepted and observed, that

respondent No.2 also had with him a country-made

pistol.

5.5 As stated above, respondent No.2 had

pistol with him and he along with Rajesh Kumar and

other accused persons had been shouting ‘kill him’

(Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay). After the incident,

the accused persons fled away. PW1, who was a Pujari

present at nearby Hanuman temple deposed to state

that he heard sounds of gun shot and upon hearing

the sound, he came out to run towards the place and

at such time, he saw Munna Singh running with

weapon in his hand. Respondent No.2 was also seen

running to flee from the Northern door of the temple.

Thus, in the events turned out inside the temple,

Munna Singh is stated to have fired the gun shots at

the victim, whereas respondent No.2 with country-

made pistol was inside.

Page 8 of 15

5.6 While the ocular evidence on record

was as above, the Medical Officer Dr. Kumar Dev

Pujan (PW6) described the injuries. The nature of

injuries stated by PW6 matched with the

prosecution’s case that the deceased was fired from

the pistol on his temple. The injuries described by the

Doctor were- ‘Lacerated & burn & charring l"Xl/2"

muscle deep on left side of face, wound of entry. On

dissection of skull bone, he found lacerated would on

the left mid skull, parietal region. Elongated brass

metal foreign body was found lodged in brain

substance of parietal region. Brain substance and

meninges lacerated and blood clout in skull cavity.’

The cause of the death of the deceased was

mentioned by PW6 to be haemorrhage and shock

due to the injuries caused as above by use of firearm.

6. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 deals with suspension of execution

of sentence pending appeal and release of appellant

on bail. Conceptually, there is a distinction between

bail and suspension of sentence. In State of Haryana

v. Hasmat

1

, this Court emphasising that the

Appellate Court is expected to record proper

reasons in writing for ordering suspension of

execution of sentence or the order appealed, further

1

(2004) 6 SCC 175

Page 9 of 15

observed that before suspension of sentence could

be ordered, there has to be careful consideration of

the relevant aspects. It was stated that order directing

suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not

be passed as matter of routine.

6.1 It is also the settled principle that the

Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at

stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some

lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of

prosecution. The presumption of innocence of the

accused which is a principle applied in criminal

jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is

tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the

trial, the presumption of innocence does not

continue.

6.2 In Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr.

2

, this Court was considering the

question of grant of bail during pendency of appeal

at the instance of appellant who was convicted under

Section, 302/149, 201 read with Section 120-B, IPC. It

was observed inter alia that the High Court should be

slow in granting bail to an accused convicted under

Section 302/149, IPC and that once convicted, the

presumption of innocence would vanish.

2

(2021) 20 SCC 818

Page 10 of 15

‘The High Court has not at all appreciated

and considered the fact that the learned trial

court on appreciation of evidence has convicted

the accused for the offences under Sections

302/149, 201 r/w 120-BIPC. Once the accused

have been convicted by the learned trial court,

there shall not be any presumption of innocence

thereafter. Therefore, the High Court shall be

very slow in granting bail to the accused pending

appeal who are convicted for the serious

offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201

r/w 120-B IPC.’ (Para 11)

6.3 In Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar

Chaudhary & Anr.

3, this Court again reiterated that

the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted

only in exceptional cases more particularly so in

cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC. It

was further observed that the court should consider

the relevant factors like nature of accusation made

against the convict, the manner of commission of

crime, the gravity of the offence, etc. Distinction was

brought out between grant of relief of suspension of

sentence in the cases where fixed term sentence is

imposed versus the cases where the convicted

person is sentenced to life imprisonment, by relying

3

(2023) 6 SCC 123

Page 11 of 15

on its own decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai

v. State of Gujarat

4,

‘When a convicted person is sentenced to

a fixed period of sentence and when he files an

appeal under any statutory right, suspension of

sentence can be considered by the appellate

court liberally unless there are exceptional

circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory

restriction against suspension of sentence it is a

different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is

life imprisonment the consideration for

suspension of sentence could be of a different

approach.’ (Para 3)

6.4 Even in respect of cases where the

sentence awarded is for a fixed term, this Court in

Chhotelal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

5

observed that ‘there is a caveat that if there are

exceptional circumstances, then the Court may

decline to suspend the sentence even in cases where

fixed term of sentence is imposed’. It was specifically

observed that in respect of plea of suspension of

sentence where the sentence is of life imprisonment,

such relief has to informed by a gross and apparent

error in the judgment of the Trial Court.

4

(1999) 4 SCC 421

5

Criminal Appeal No.4804 of 2025 decided on 10.11.2025

Page 12 of 15

‘What could be those exceptional

circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for

the Court concerned to look into those exceptional

circumstances as may be pointed out by the State.

However, the only consideration that should

weigh with the appellate court while considering

the plea for suspension of sentence of life

imprisonment is that the convict should be in a

position to point out something very palpable or a

very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court

on the basis of which he is able to make good his

case that on this ground alone, his appeal

deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.’

(Para 16)

6.5 The dictum that the benefit of

suspension of sentence, if at all to be granted in the

cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it

has to be only in exception cases, is well settled in the

catena of judgments. In Vijay Kumar v. Narender &

Ors.

6

it was observed that in considering the prayer

for bail in a case involving a serious offence like

murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the court

should consider relevant factors like the nature of

accusation made against the accused, the manner in

which crime is alleged to have been committed and

the seriousness of offence. The view was reiterated in

6

(2002) 9 SCC 366

Page 13 of 15

Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

7

,

Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Marashtra

8

,

Gomti v. Thakurdas & Ors.

9

.

7. Looking to the crime scenario in the

instant case, the murder of father of complainant-

Pundit Krishna Behari Upadhyay took place inside the

temple. The appellant complainant (PW2) in terms

deposed that respondent No.2 had pistol in his hand.

When all the accused persons came, the father of the

appellant got frightened, went inside the temple.

Thereupon, as is stated, the accused persons,

including respondent No.2, pushed the door of the

temple and made a forced entry inside, catching hold

of Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay. The victim fell

down having received gun shot injury to be in a pool

of blood. As per the evidence appreciated by the

Trial court leading to conviction of respondent No.2

under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC, the

firearm was used by Munna Singh whereas

respondent No.2 with pistol in his hand was

instigating. Munna Singh and respondent No.2 had

firearms with them. Respondent No.2 had with him a

country-made pistol.

7

(2005) 5 SCC 281

9

(2007) 11 SCC 160

Page 14 of 15

8. It is also to be noted that two of the

accused persons are absconding.

9. In the light of the above highlighted

principles applied to the facts of the present case and

having regard to the relevant considerations such as

nature of accusation, events in the crime and even the

attribution of role of the appellant, it has to be held

that the High Court should not have suspended the

sentence, and releases respondent No.2. A clear

error was committed by the High Court. The

participation and role played by respondent No.2 in

the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as

grave and could not have been discounted for its

seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon

conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149,

IPC.

9.1 It goes without saying that

observations in this order are limited to the aspect of

suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 and

releasing him on bail, not to influence the course of

merit of the trial.

10. For foregoing reasons and discussion,

impugned judgment and order of the High Court

dated 28.08.2024 suspending the sentence of

respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent

Page 15 of 15

No.2 Sheo Narayan Mahto to is directed to surrender

within ten days. The police authorities shall ensure

that respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within

the above time permitted for surrendering.

11. The present appeal is accordingly

allowed.

In view of disposal of the Appeal, the

interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.

………………………………..,J.

[MANMOHAN]

………………………………….., J.

[ N.V. ANJARIA ]

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 18, 2025.

(VK)

Page 1 of 9

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2025

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8737 OF 2025)

RAJESH UPADHAYAY …Appellant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant-original complainant

has questioned judgment and order dated 16.01.2025

of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature

at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.536 of 2024,

whereby the High Court suspended the sentence

imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on

bail during the pendency of the Appeal.

2.1 Respondent No.2-Rajesh Mahto alias

Rajesh Kumar Mahto son of Sheo Narayan Mahto,

came to be convicted under Section 302 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with

Page 2 of 9

imposition of fine of ₹20,000/-, by learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, 19

th

Rohtas in Sessions

Trial No.101 of 2022. The respondent No.2 was further

convicted for the offence under Sections 342/149, IPC

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of

one year and to pay fine of ₹500/-. In respect of

conviction under Sections 147 and 504/149, IPC,

sentence of one year for each offence and fine of ₹500

and ₹1,000/- respectively was imposed.

2.2 Respondent No.2 came to be

convicted also for the offence under Section 148, IPC,

for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

for a term of two years with fine of ₹1,000/-.

Conviction was also recorded by the Sessions Court

under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in respect

thereof respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to

pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, with default clause.

3. The appellant-informant’s father

named one Krishna Behari Upadhyay who was

grandfather of respondent No.2 was murdered. As

per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2021 at about 4.30

p.m., the appellant along with his father Krishna

Behari Upadhyay reached at Mahavir temple of the

village to light ‘Diya’ and to do ‘Arti’. At that time, the

accused persons and co-villagers Bashishthha Singh

Page 3 of 9

alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar,

Raghunandan Kumar and Rajesh Mahto-respondent

No.2 herein wielding the arms and weapons reached,

at the temple. Hurling abuses, all of them surrounded

the appellant and his father, telling said Krishna

Behari Upadhyay that he was not performing Puja and

was engaging in politics.

3.1 It is the further case of the prosecution

that Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay tried to close the

main gate of the temple, but the accused persons

pushed the gate and made a forcible entry inside the

temple. Ajit Singh and Raghunandan Kumar caught

hold of Krishna Behari Upadhyay and Munna Singh is

stated to have fired at him with a revolver. It was

stated respondent No.2 also had a country-made

pistol with him and that he as well as his father Sheo

Narayan Mahto were instigatively uttering that the

Pandit should be killed as he was excessively

indulging in politics. Because of gun fire shots,

Krishna Behari Upadhyay fell down inside the temple

premises and was in a pool of blood.

3.2 The appellant somehow managed to

flee away from the place and informed his family

members. Om Prakash Tiwari and Ritesh Mukhia who

were the family members, as well as the other co-

villagers reached at the place of the offence. They

saw Munna Singh, Ajit Kumar, Naga Kumar,

Page 4 of 9

Raghunandan Kumar and respondent No.2-Rajesh

Kumar Mahto alias Rajesh as also Sheo Narayan

Mahto running away in the Eastern direction.

3.3 Upon being taken to the hospital,

Krishna Behari Upadhyay was declared dead. A

Fardbeyan was given by the appellant on 11.12.2021,

pursuant to which the police registered the First

Information Report No.96 of 2021 for the offences

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 504, 506, 302

and 120 (B), IPC, and for the offence under Section 27

of the Arms Act against the six persons, including

respondent No.2. On 02.02.2022, respondent No.2

surrendered before the Trial Court. Chargesheet

No.9 of 2022 was filed on 28.03.2022.

3.4 The Sessions Court convicted and

sentenced respondent No.2 for the offences as

mentioned above. In the appeal proceedings before

the High Court, respondent No.2 filed an application

praying for suspension of sentence, which was

allowed by the High Court and during the pendency

of the appeal, respondent No.2 was ordered to be

released on bail, suspending the sentence imposed

on him.

3.5 The High Court took the view that the

role attributed to respondent No.2 in the incident was

of instigation, therefore the sentence could be

Page 5 of 9

suspended. Accordingly to the High Court, the First

Information Report (FIR) was sent to the Magistrate’s

court after three days and further that the original

copy of the inquest report was not produced, which,

stated the High Court, were also the factors entitling

respondent No.2-the convict to be released on bail

during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Adarsh

Kumar Tiwari for the appellant and Mr. Anshul

Narayan, learned additional standing counsel for the

respondent-State of Bihar.

5. There is no escape from the fact that

respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read

with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine.

He is also convicted for the offence under the Arms

Act. Respondent No.2 had undergone incarceration

so far for three years. His appeal has been awaiting

final outcome.

5.1 It is to be stated that along with

respondent No.2 herein, his father Sheo Narayan

Mahto was also one of the accused. The High Court

decided Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2024 in

respect of said accused Sheo Narayan Mahto and by

a judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 suspended

Page 6 of 9

the sentence awarded to said Sheo Narayan Mahto.

Like the present respondent No.2, the said Sheo

Narayan Mahto the father of respondent was also

convicted for offence under Section 302 read with

Section 149, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for life and fine of ₹20,000/- and was also convicted

similarly in respect of other offences under the IPC

including for the offence under the Arms Act.

5.2 While suspending the sentence of the

present respondent No.2 as per the impugned

judgment and order, the High Court relied on

paragraph Nos.4,5,6 and 7 from the order dated

28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of

2024 and adopted the total reasoning of the said

judgment and order in case of Sheo Narayan Madho.

It is to be further noted that as recorded in the

impugned order, prosecution conceded that the role

attributed to the present respondent No.2 was similar

to the co-convict Sheo Narayan Mahto who was

released by the High Court on bail as per order dated

28.08.2024.

5.3 The High Court in the impugned order

observed while suspending the sentence and order

awarded to respondent No.2 herein and releasing

him bail during the pendency of the appeal, thus

Page 7 of 9

‘We are of the view that the case of the

appellant is similar to that of co-accused Sheo

Narayan Mahto and, therefore, when the co-

accused has been released on bail by this Court,

the case of the appellant for grant of bail and for

suspension of sentence requires consideration.’

5.4 According to the High Court, since the

role of respondent No.2 herein could also be said to

be one of instigation only, like that attributed to said

Sheo Narayan Mahto, present respondent No.2 is

entitled to be released on bail and his sentence is

required to be suspended.

6. The said Sheo Narayan Mahto

preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8736

of 2025. This Court by a separate judgment and order

which is also pronounced today, set aside the said

order and cancelled the bail granted to said Sheo

Narayan Mahto. Respondent No.2 herein sails in the

same boat. The role attributed to present respondent

No.2 in the entire commission of crime in the crime

scenario is said as that of Sheo Narayan Mahto. Same

set of facts and circumstances apply to respondent

no.2 herein while considering the present appeal by

the appellant information which seeks cancellation of

bail granted to respondent No.2.

7. In the above view, the order of

suspension of sentence passed in favour of

respondent No.2 as well as bail granted to him by the

Page 8 of 9

High Court deserves to be cancelled for the very

reasons recorded in the judgment and order of this

Court in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

No.8736 of 2025 pronounced today. The discussion

supplied and reasons recorded in the abovesaid

judgment and order dated 17.12.2025 in paragraphs

5.1 to 09 would apply to the case of respondent No.2

herein and the same shall be treated to as part of this

order.

8. It has to be held that the High Court

should not have suspended the sentence and release

respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the

High Court. The participation and role played by

respondent No.2 in the entire commission of offence

has to be viewed as grave and could not have been

discounted for its seriousness to suspend his

sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302

read with Section 149, IPC.

9. It goes without saying that

observations in this order are limited to the aspect of

suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 and

releasing him on bail, not to influence the course of

merit of the trial.

10. For foregoing reasons and discussion,

impugned judgment and order of the High Court

dated 16.01.2025 suspending the sentence of

Page 9 of 9

respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent

No.2 [Rajesh Mahto alias Rajesh Kumar Mahto son of

Sheo Narayan Mahto] is directed to surrender within

ten days. The police authorities shall ensure that said

respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within the

above time permitted for surrendering.

11. The present appeal is accordingly

allowed.

In view of disposal of the Appeal, the

interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.

………………………………..,J.

[MANMOHAN]

………………………………….., J.

[ N.V. ANJARIA ]

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 18, 2025.

(VK)