LADDI STATE OF PUNJAB STATE OF v. VERSUS
Case Details
CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 104 (O&M) CRM-M-64899-2025(O&M) : 18.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 18.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION NIRBHAI SINGH @LADDI NIRBHAI SINGH @LADDI STATE OF PUNJAB STATE OF VERSUS VERSUS .....PETITIONER .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT .....RESPONDENT SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by : Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for Argued by , Advocate for the petitioner. , DAG Punjab. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab. SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J (ORAL) SURYA PRATAP SINGH 1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections For the commission of offence punishable under Sections For the commission of offence punishable under Sections , 2023, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 318(4), and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 318(4), and 61(2) of 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 318(4), and 61(2) of
Legal Reasoning
dated hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ only, the FIR No.176 dated hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Fatehgarh .2025 has been lodged in Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh .2025 has been lodged in Police Station 17.10.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned Sahib. Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fatehgarh Sahib learned Additional Sessions Judge , vide order dated Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated t of anticipatory bail, by .2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail, by .2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefi 04.11.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefi virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid
Legal Reasoning
concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 2 2. ecord are that the Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the Briefly stating the facts emerging from r at the instance of Sukhjivan Singh, abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Sukhjivan Singh, at the instance of Sukhjivan Singh, abovementioned FIR came into being hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 16.10.2025 at about 12:30 pm, he went to his fields, and complainant that on 16.10.2025 at about 12:30 pm, he went to his fields, and complainant that on 16.10.2025 at about 12:30 pm, he went to his fields, and complainant that on 16.10.2025 at about 12:30 pm, he went to his fields, and saw that on his left the spot in his car, but two persons that on his arrival a person had left the spot in his car, but two persons left the spot in his car, but two persons were present in his fields. As per complainant, when he enquired from them were present in his fields. As per complainant, when he enquired from them were present in his fields. As per complainant, when he enquired from them were present in his fields. As per complainant, when he enquired from them about the purpose of their presence in his fields, one of them, who identified about the purpose of their presence in his fields, one of them, who identified about the purpose of their presence in his fields, one of them, who identified about the purpose of their presence in his fields, one of them, who identified himself as mplainant that he was willing to as ‘Jasbir Singh’, told the complainant that he was willing to mplainant that he was willing to purchase the abovementioned property, and that the abovesaid property was purchase the abovementioned property, and that the abovesaid property was purchase the abovementioned property, and that the abovesaid property was purchase the abovementioned property, and that the abovesaid property was name owned by another person accompanying him. As per complainant, the name owned by another person accompanying him. As per complainant, owned by another person accompanying him. As per complainant, of second person was disclosed by Jasbir Singh as Sukhjivan Singh. of second person was disclosed by Jasbir Singh as Sukhjivan Singh. of second person was disclosed by Jasbir Singh as Sukhjivan Singh. 3. mplainant further stated that when he enquired from the The complainant further stated that when he enquired from the mplainant further stated that when he enquired from the second person, who was portraying himself as Sukhjivan Singh, he disclosed second person, who was portraying himself as Sukhjivan Singh, he disclosed second person, who was portraying himself as Sukhjivan Singh, he disclosed second person, who was portraying himself as Sukhjivan Singh, he disclosed name as Ajmer Singh. According to complainant, when he searched his real name as Ajmer Singh. According to complainant, when he searched name as Ajmer Singh. According to complainant, when he searched name as Ajmer Singh. According to complainant, when he searched the person of Ajmer Singh, a forged Aadhar Card in t the person of he name of Sukhjivan , a forged Aadhar Card in the name of Sukhjivan having photograph of Ajmer Singh, was found in his possession. having photograph of Ajmer Singh Singh, having photograph of Ajmer Singh 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of and the abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged, abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged, investigation was taken up. As per prosecution investigation during investigation, the prosecution, during investigation, the accused Ajmer Singh was arrested, who is in custody. According to accused Ajmer Singh was arrested, who is in custody. According to accused Ajmer Singh was arrested, who is in custody. According to accused Ajmer Singh was arrested, who is in custody. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, when Ajmer Singh was prosecution, during the course of investigation, when Ajmer Singh was prosecution, during the course of investigation, when Ajmer Singh was prosecution, during the course of investigation, when Ajmer Singh was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that he interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that he interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that he interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that he ong with another person, who had left the spot in the car, namely Nirbhay along with another person, who had left the spot in the car, namely Nirbhay ong with another person, who had left the spot in the car, namely Nirbhay ong with another person, who had left the spot in the car, namely Nirbhay Singh @Laddi (petitioner herein), was trying to sell the abovementioned Singh @Laddi (petitioner herein), was trying to sell the abovementioned Singh @Laddi (petitioner herein), was trying to sell the abovementioned Singh @Laddi (petitioner herein), was trying to sell the abovementioned property by forging IDs of the complainant. property by forging IDs of the complainant. property by forging IDs of the complainant. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 3 5. 6. Heard. t the petitioner It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner It has been contended on behalf of petitioner tha is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that in fact, the only evidence, available with the prosecuting agency against that in fact, the only evidence, available with the prosecuting agency against that in fact, the only evidence, available with the prosecuting agency against that in fact, the only evidence, available with the prosecuting agency against accused Ajmer Singh. As per the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused Ajmer Singh. As per the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co counsel for the petitioner, the abovesaid evidence is inadmissible learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovesaid evidence is inadmissible counsel for the petitioner, the abovesaid evidence is inadmissible counsel for the petitioner, the abovesaid evidence is inadmissible accused Ajmer Singh was recorded when he evidence, as the statement of co-accused Ajmer Singh was recorded when he accused Ajmer Singh was recorded when he evidence, as the statement of co was already in police custody, and thus, the abovementioned statement is in was already in police custody, and thus, the abovementioned statement is was already in police custody, and thus, the abovementioned statement is was already in police custody, and thus, the abovementioned statement is admissible in evidence in view of Section admissible in evidence in view of Sect ion 23 of BSA. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner has In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial also argued that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial also argued that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial also argued that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, and and and and the maximum punishment prescribed the maximum punishment prescribed the maximum punishment prescribed the maximum punishment prescribed for for for for the the the the onment upto 07 years. It has also been abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto 07 years. It has also been onment upto 07 years. It has also been abovementioned offence is impris by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, no contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, no by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, no contended transaction or creation of document, at the instance of petitioner, transaction or creation of document has taken , at the instance of petitioner, has taken s not made place in the present case and therefore, any offence, whatsoever, is not made place in the present case and therefore, any offence, whatsoever, i place in the present case and therefore, any offence, whatsoever, i out. 8. The abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the The abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the The abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the . The learned petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel. The learned petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel State Counsel has argued that in the present case, a false document, i.e. State Counsel has argued that in the present case, a false document, i.e. State Counsel has argued that in the present case, a false document, i.e. State Counsel has argued that in the present case, a false document, i.e. identity card of the card of the complainant, has been created by the co accused of the ant, has been created by the co-accused of the petitioner, and that there is very specific and categorical allegations against petitioner, and that there is very specific and categorical allegations against petitioner, and that there is very specific and categorical allegations against petitioner, and that there is very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he hatched the conspiracy with his co the petitioner that he accused Ajmer hatched the conspiracy with his co-accused Ajmer ospective buyer, but Singh, and tried to defraud not only Jasvir Singh, the prospective buyer, but Singh, and tried to defraud not only Jasvir Singh, the pr Singh, and tried to defraud not only Jasvir Singh, the pr also the complainant, who is owner of the property. also the complainant, who is owner of the property also the complainant, who is owner of the property GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 4 9. addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also In addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also contended that this is not the first instance when the petitioner has been contended that this is not the first instance when the petitioner has been contended that this is not the first instance when the petitioner has been contended that this is not the first instance when the petitioner has been found indulging in fraudulent activity. The lea found indulging in rned State Counsel has . The learned State Counsel has pointed out that the contents of petition itself shows that earlier also in four pointed out that the contents of petition itself shows that earlier also in four pointed out that the contents of petition itself shows that earlier also in four pointed out that the contents of petition itself shows that earlier also in four cases, the petitioner has been prosecuted, and out of those four cases, three cases, the petitioner has been prosecuted, and out of those four cases, three cases, the petitioner has been prosecuted, and out of those four cases, three cases, the petitioner has been prosecuted, and out of those four cases, three cases were of cheating and forgery. It has also been pointed out by learned cases were of cheating and forgery. It has also been pointed out by learne cases were of cheating and forgery. It has also been pointed out by learne cases were of cheating and forgery. It has also been pointed out by learne convicted and in State Counsel that in one case, the petitioner has been convicted and in State Counsel that in one case, the petitioner has been State Counsel that in one case, the petitioner has been another case he has entered into compromise and returned the money. another case he has entered into compromise another case he has entered into compromise 10. 11. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case this concerned, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that this concerned, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that concerned, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is true that name of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is true that name of contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is true that name of contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is true that name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR, but this fact cannot be ignored that at petitioner does not figure in the FIR, but this fact cannot be ignored that at petitioner does not figure in the FIR, but this fact cannot be ignored that at petitioner does not figure in the FIR, but this fact cannot be ignored that at en the matter was reported by the complainant to the very first instance when the matter was reported by the complainant to en the matter was reported by the complainant to the very first instance wh the police, he had specifically mentioned that on his arrival at his fields, he the police, he had specifically mentioned that on his arrival at his fields, he the police, he had specifically mentioned that on his arrival at his fields, he the police, he had specifically mentioned that on his arrival at his fields, he had noticed the departure of a person in the car. As per information, had noticed the departure of a person in the car. As per information, had noticed the departure of a person in the car. As per information, had noticed the departure of a person in the car. As per information, collected by the Investigating Agency, the abovesaid pers collected by the Investigating Agency, on was petitioner. the abovesaid person was petitioner. 12. State In the present case, it is also the claim of the respondent-State In the present case, it is also the claim of the respondent accused, namely Ajmer Singh, had suffered that during interrogation, the co-accused, namely Ajmer Singh, had suffered accused, namely Ajmer Singh, had suffered that during interrogation, the co a disclosure statement with regard to the fact that conspiracy for fraudulent a disclosure statement with regard to the fact that conspiracy for fraudulent a disclosure statement with regard to the fact that conspiracy for fraudulent a disclosure statement with regard to the fact that conspiracy for fraudulent sale of property of complainant was hatched by him sale of pro The perty of complainant was hatched by him and the petitioner.The to unearth the truth, peculiar facts of this case leads to the conclusion that to unearth the truth, peculiar facts of this case leads to the conclusion that peculiar facts of this case leads to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost necessary custodial particularly interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost necessary, particularly petitioner. In the present case, the extent of in view of the past conduct of the petitioner. In the present case, the extent of petitioner. In the present case, the extent of in view of the past conduct of the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime is one of the most involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime is one of the most involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime is one of the most involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime is one of the most GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 5 relevant factors, and the evidence with regard to abovementioned fact cannot relevant factors, and the evidence with regard to abovementioned fact cannot relevant factors, and the evidence with regard to abovementioned fact cannot relevant factors, and the evidence with regard to abovementioned fact cannot g Agency for be collected unless opportunity is given to the Investigating Agency for be collected unless opportunity is given to the Investigatin be collected unless opportunity is given to the Investigatin custodial interrogation of the petitioner. custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 13. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right, and in the custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right, and in the custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right, and in the custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right, and in the likely present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely present case, if such right is denied to the Investigat present case, if such right is denied to the Investigat as the investigation may not take a to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a as the investigation may not take a to result into miscarriage of justice proper headway. proper headway. 14. It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be grant exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be grant exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be grant as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should as a matter of rule be granted . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist extraordinary remedy. the extraordinary remedy. 15. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the , has Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stre bail is a rule, it cannot; tch of imagination, be said that by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. anticipatory bail is a rule. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case has 'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial each case. discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of lled upon to exercise the According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 6 interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of he investigation. justice and may hamper the investigation. justice and may hamper t 17. Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the has held that anticipatory bail is an Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an has held that anticipatory bail is an Hon'ble Supreme Court of India exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 18. Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 1980 SCC (2) 565 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised spa ringly in ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offe nder to the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure to secure to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received incriminating material from information likely to be received incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can , the power under Section 438 should not be be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be , the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64899 64899-2025(O&M) 8587 7 19. If the fact-situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles, abovementioned principles, abovementioned principles, it it it transpires transpires transpires no such exceptional that no such exceptional that that warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory circumstances bail by this Court, exists in this case. Thus bail by this Court present Thus, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits is devoid of merits deserves dismissal . Accordingly, the same is dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. hereby dismissed. 20. , clarified that the observations made hereinabove It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove , clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21. Since Since Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. application, if any, is rendered infructuous. application, if any, is rendered infructuous. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No : Yes/No : Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document