Delhi High Court

Gurinder Mohan Singh Sambhi & Ors vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 7 February, 2017

Author:
Mukta Gupta

Bench:
Mukta Gupta

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 7th February, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 1645/2015

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH SAMBHI & ORS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. D. Hasija with Ms.
Sandhani B. Saikia, Advs.
versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with
Insp. Usha Sharma, PS Hari
Nagar.
Mr. Devender N. Grover with
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 205/2016

AJIT SINGH SAMBHI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. D. Hasija with Ms.
Sandhani B. Saikia, Advs.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with
Insp. Usha Sharma, PS Hari
Nagar.
Mr. Devender N. Grover with
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. 1590/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 1645/2015
Crl.M.A. 1589/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 205/2016

1. By these two applications, the applicant Ajit Singh Sambhi seeks
return of his passport which he was directed to deposit with the investigating

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 1 of 15

officer on the statement of learned counsel for the complainant before this
Court when bail application of his parents and brother i.e. Bail Appln.
No.1645/2015 came up for hearing on the application of complainant
seeking impleadment and withdrawal of interim protection on 22 nd April,
2016. The order dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by this Court in Bail Appln.
No.1645/2015 reads as under:-

"Crl.M.A.No.19024/2015 (by the complainant for impleadment)
Vide this application, the complainant seeks her
impleadment in the bail application. Keeping in view the nature
of the offence, the application is allowed. The complainant be
impleaded as respondent No.2 in the application. Amended memo
of parties be filed within ten days.

Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.No.19022/2015(by the complainant for withdrawal of
interim protection)
Vide this application, the complainant seeks withdrawal of
the interim protection granted to all the petitioners including the
husband.

It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that
despite directions given to the husband of the complainant, he
has not deposited the passport. Counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to deposit the passport on or before 12 noon of 23rd
April, 2016.

It is made clear that in case the husband of the
complainant fails to abide by this direction, interim protection
granted to him will automatically stand cancelled.

Reply to this application has not been filed by the
petitioner so far. One final opportunity is granted to file the same
within two weeks with advance copy to the State as well as
counsel for the complainant.

Renotify on 20th July, 2016.

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 2 of 15

Interim orders to continue so far as the petitioners are
concerned. However, interim order qua the husband of the
complainant is subject to return of the passport."

2. Facts leading to passing of the order dated 22nd April, 2016 by this
Court are that two FIRs were got registered by the complainant against the
applicant Ajit Singh Sambhi and his family members being FIR Nos.
15/2015 under
Sections 313
/
IPC registered at PS Sunlight Colony and
799/2015 under
Sections 498A
/
/
/
IPC registered at PS Hari Nagar.

3. In FIR No.799/2015 under
Sections 498A
/
/
/
IPC registered
at PS Hari Nagar, anticipatory bail applications were filed by the family
members of the applicant i.e. Gurinder Mohan Singh Sambhi, Ramanjeet
Sambhi, parents of the applicant and Gurmukh Singh Sambhi, brother of the
applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which were
dismissed vide order dated 6th August, 2015. Hence the three of them filed
bail application before this Court being Bail Appln. No.1645/2015 which
came up for hearing before this Court on 14 th August, 2015 wherein this
Court passed the following order:-

"BAIL APPLN. 1645/2015

The petitioners before this Court are father-in-law,
mother-inlaw and brother-in-law of the complainant. The
complainant had been married to the son of petitioner nos.1 and

2. Parties had been married on 04.12.2013. Contention in the
complaint besides harassment qua the petitioners and her
husband for dowry demand was that she was forced into an
abortion for which she had filed a complaint pursuant to which
FIR under
Sections 313
/
of the IPC. Learned senior counsel
for petitioners states that the petitioners have been granted bail
in that matter. The present FIR has been registered under

Sections 498A
/
/
/
of the IPC. It is stated that
complainant is living separately from her husband since
19.12.2014. This Court has been informed that her husband

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 3 of 15

(Dr.Ajit Singh Sambhi) is a British citizen and is living in London
and has taken up a job in London. He is a dentist by profession.

It is further submitted that the husband is ready to join
investigation and the parties can work out an amicable
settlement. He is under coercive pressure and he is apprehending
arrest that he has not come to India.

Dr.Ajit Singh Sambhi will be present in Court on the next
date; he will appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre for mediation proceedings on 25.8.2015 and
thereafter on all subsequent dates as and when summoned by the
Mediator. The petitioners shall also join investigation and the
mediation proceedings.

Needless to state that the complainant shall also join the
mediation proceedings on the aforesaid date and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as and when summoned by the Mediator.

Till the next date no arrest.

Dr.Ajit Singh Sambhi shall also not be arrested. He shall
appear before the Investigating Officer if so required.

Investigating Officer shall inform the concerned
authorities as the learned senior counsel for the petitioners states
that a LOC has been issued against Dr.Ajit Singh Sambhi."

4. In FIR No.15/2015 under
Sections 313
/
IPC an application was
filed by Gurinder Mohan Singh, father of the applicant seeking directions to
the investigating officer to file status report depicting stage of investigation.
One more application was filed with the prayer that proceedings under

Section 82
Cr.P.C. against the applicant Ajit Singh Sambhi be stayed. On
these two applications on 24th August, 2015 learned Metropolitan Magistrate
passed the following order:-

"An application filed on behalf of the applicant-Dr. Gurinder
Mohan Singh Sambhi for seekingdirections to the IO and call for
status report/ATR.

Reply filed.

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 4 of 15

The present application is filed with the prayer for directing
the IO to file his status report depicting the stage of investigation.
Another application has also been filed with a prayer that
proceedings U/s 82
Cr.P.C
. be stayed against applicant-Ajit Singh.
However, orally the Ld. Counsel for applicant-Dr.G.M.S. Sambhi
and Sh.A.S. Sambhi has also prayed that in the present case, the
IO has to file a report against son of applicant-Sh. A.S. Sambhi for
execution of process U/S 82
Cr.P.C
. on 30.09.2015 and that LOC
of the accused in the present case has been issued and has prayed
relief on two counts:-

1. Process U/s 82
Cr.P.C
. be stayed against accused-A.S.
Sambhi.

2. LOC against the accused be cancelled.

It is stated that LOC has been issued on intimation of the IO to
the concerned authority and the grounds prayed for the relief are
as follows:-

1. The accused has not received any notice to join the
investigation as he has residing abroad and no steps have been
taken with the M.E.A. to serve the notice abroad in London
where the accused is residing. Even the IO has not countered
this submission of the applicant and the father of the
complainant has also not submitted on this point.

2. The Hon'ble High Court has granted relief to the applicant
that he shall not be arrested and the IO will inform the
concerned authority as LOC has been issued against the
applicant and the applicant needs to join the mediation
proceedings which are slated for hearing in Hon'ble High
Court on 25.08.2015 and said order made in another FIR case
lodged U/s 498A,406.506/34 PS: Hari Nagar lodged at the
instance of the complainant will be frustrated if the applicant
is not allowed to depart by the immigration at the Airport.

I agree with the submission of the Ld. Counsel if the same is
verified on the record and I stayed the proceedings U/s 82
Cr.P.C
.
against the applicant and LOC against the applicant is cancelled,
subject to the following conditions:-

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 5 of 15

1. The process U/s 82
Cr.P.C
. is stayed for a period of two
weeks and the LOC is cancelled so that the applicant may join the
mediation proceedings. Process U/s 82
Cr.P.C
. is stayed till
07.09.2015.

2. The IO is at liberty to impound the passport of the
applicant in the interest of justice and smooth investigation.

Separate copy of the order be provided to the IO for the
record and also to the applicant if so prayed."

5. The order dated 24th August, 2015 was followed by order dated 14th
September, 2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR
No.15/2015 as under:-

"None for accused despite several calls even till 1.15 pm.
Case was listed as a miscellaneous matter which are taken
up at 12.30 pm and previous hearing i.e. on 24.08.2015,
07.09.2015, 10.09.2015, 11.09.2015 were also done at 12.30 pm.
Vide order dated 24.08.2015 process
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. against
applicant Ajit Sambhi was stayed on two conditions firstly that the
applicant will join the mediation proceedings and that IO may
impound the passport. Today report was called from the IO
whether the passport has been impounded. It is pertinent to note
that LOC has been opened against the accused which was
cancelled vide order dated 24.08.2015 and at the same time liberty
was granted to the IO to impound the passport. Now SI Sudhir
Sharma on behalf of IO SI Sanjay Kumar has filed the report that
the accused is avoiding deposit of passport with the Investigating
Agency despite giving of notice
u/s 91
Cr.P.C. and opportunity is
given to him on 03.09.2015, 05.09.2015 and 07.09.2015 as well as
on 09.09.2015. As the accused is not cooperating with the
Investigating Agency, the order dated 24.08.2015 is automatically
set aside which was conditional on the deposit of passport. The
Investigating Agency may proceed against the accused
u/s 82

Cr.P.C. and the status of LOC of the accused which was opened
may again be reopened and separate copy of the order be given to

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 6 of 15

the SHO for his intimation and compliance. Date of execution of
process
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. is 30.09.2015."

6. As noted above, though the applicant had not filed any anticipatory
bail application in FIR No.799/2015 under
Sections 498A
/
/
/
IPC
but so that parties could negotiate a settlement and appear in mediation
proceedings, the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court in
Bail Appln. No.1645/2015. The applicant herein filed an anticipatory bail
application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR
No.15/2015 under
Sections 313
/
IPC which also came up for hearing on
24th August, 2015 wherein on the opposition of the complainant and time
sought to file the reply, the application was adjourned to 25th August, 2015
without passing any interim order in favour of the applicant. Vide order
dated 25th August, 2015, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted interim
protection noting as under:-

"Investigating agency has fairly conceded that they have no
objection, in case interim protection is granted to the applicant to
enable him to participate in mediation proceedings.

As informed by the father of the complainant, the mediation
proceedings are to be commenced from today itself at 3.30 PM
before the Mediation Cell, High Court of Delhi.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, it is hereby
directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicant till
next date of hearing.

Put up for arguments and disposal of present bail application
on 28.9.2015.

Copy of the order be given "dasti" by bail section."

7. On 28th September, 2015, in view of the order of the Metropolitan
Magistrate giving discretion to the investigating officer that if need so arises,
he may impound the passport, the investigating officer in his reply submitted

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 7 of 15

that despite directions of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the
petitioner/applicant was not surrendering the passport on which the learned
Additional Sessions Judge passed the following order:-

"In his reply, IO has submitted that despite directions of the
court of Ld. MM, the applicant is not surrendering his passport.
Copy of the order dt. 24.8.2015 perused whereby the Ld. MM was
pleased to grant liberty to the IO to impound the passport of the
applicant, if any need to do so arises.

IO has failed to justify any reasons for impounding the
passport of the applicant who is stated to be working in United
Kingdoms.

First round for mediation is stated to have been over and now
the matter is further listed for negotiation between the parties on
the quantum of alimony.

Hence, put up for further proceedings on 3.11.2015.
Interim order to continue till next date of hearing.
Copy of the order be given dasti by bail section."

8. The two applications were disposed off by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate vide order dated 30th September, 2015 noting that since the
proceedings under
Section 82
Cr.P.C. were pending and an interim
protection by superior court was granted, thus the applicant should approach
for the reliefs before the superior court. The order dated 30th September,
2015 reads as under:-

"Two applications are pending disposal, one application is
for the status report and the other application is for passing
appropriate order in view of the reply of the IO and the submission
of the counsel that the applicant is regularly joining the
investigation. As far as the application for passing appropriate
order is concerned the same was filed by the counsel after order
dated 14.09.2015 of this court whereby the investigating agency
was given the liberty to proceed
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. and also liberty
was given to reopen the LOC after the same was directed to be

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 8 of 15

closed on 24.8.15. Basically in the said application the Ld.
Counsel has prayed that process
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. which was stayed
on 24.08.2015 be finally dropped and adverse process against the
accused be cancelled as he is regularly joining the investigation.

As far as the application for passing appropriate order is
concerned report was called from the IO regarding the issuance of
notice to the accused/applicant for joining investigation after

09.09.2015 and his response thereto as the order on dropping of
proceedings
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. hinges on the cooperation of accused
in joining the investigation. The Ld. Counsel also submits that the
IO may be directed not to impound the passport of the applicant.
Ld. Counsel has also shown copy of order dated 28.09.2015 of Ld.
ASJ Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, wherein interim directions have
been given that no coercive action be taken against the applicant
till 03.11.2015. Also it has been observed that the IO has failed to
justify any reason for impounding the passport of the applicant
who is stated to be working at United Kingdom. As this court has
already passed the order dated 14.09.2015 wherein IO has been
given liberty to proceed
u/s 82
Cr.P.C and reopen the LOC against
the applicant and on the other hand it is apparent that a superior
court has given interim protection to the applicant and made
observation relating to the passport, propriety demands that for
the final relief regarding process
u/s 82
Cr.P.C. and retention of
passport, the applicant may approach for the same in appropriate
legal proceedings in the superior court.

Now as far as application for the status report is concerned,
it is alleged by the counsel that the IO is not conducting
investigating fairly and is not giving proper status of the
cooperation of the applicant in joining the investigation. The IO
has remained silent on the notice given to the accused for
05.09.2015 for joining the investigation and also no notice
u/s 91

Cr.P.C. has been shown by the IO which he states to have been
given to the applicant for impounding the passport. When this
court asked the reasons for the same to the IO, he had no
response. It seems that the IO is not working diligently on the
case and in future he is expected to give complete answers to the
query posed. The counsel for the applicant also states that if he
finds that the IO is not conducting investigation fairly, he would

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 9 of 15

move appropriate monitoring application regarding the
investigation conducted by the IO. The counsel is given liberty for
the same. With these observation the two applications are
disposed of. Copy may be given dasti to the counsel, if so prayed,
as per rules."

9. Vide order dated 3rd November, 2015, learned Additional Sessions
Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.15/2015
under
Sections 313
/
IPC and did not impose any condition that the
applicant should deposit the passport. The conditions imposed were inter
alia that he would not leave the territory of India without prior information
to the investigating officer of the case as well as Ld. MM/ACMM/CMM
concerned. The order dated 3rd November, 2015 reads as under:-

"Today again, it has been submitted that no negotiation could
take place between the parties as exorbitant demand is being
raised from the side of the complainant. FIR in this case has been
registered on 6.1.2015 and more than 10 months have elapsed
since then.

IO when questioned about the pace of investigation, had
stated that he was informed by the doctor concerned that it was
owning to some medical complication that the complainant was
aborted. It has been stated further by the IO that as per the
complainant's version, she was administered something by the
family of the applicant due to which she had developed medical
complications. However, no investigation has been conducted so
far in order to ascertain this fact.

It is also note worthy to mention here that same doctor who
was attending the complainant from the day one had caused her
abortion and the said doctor had already made a statement in that
regard to the IO.

From the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
required in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, it is hereby directed that in the event of his arrest,

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 10 of 15

applicant/accused be admitted on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of IO/Arresting Officer.

Applicant/accused shall however join the investigation as and
when required by the IO and he shall not make any attempt either
directly or indirectly to intimidate the complainant or hamper the
investigation. He is also directed to not to leave the territory of
India without prior information to the IO of the case as well as Ld.
MM/ACMM/CMM concerned.

With these observations, the application, as filed, stands
disposed of.

Copy of the order be given "dasti" by bail section."

10. It is evident from the above orders that in case FIR No.15/2015 under

Sections 313
/
IPC which was the subject matter of applications seeking
progress in investigation and quashing of proceedings under
Section 82

Cr.P.C., there was no direction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
directing deposit of passport to the investigation officer except that
discretion was given to the investigation officer to impound the passport if
the need so arises. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not apply its
judicial mind to the fact whether the investigating officer had the authority to
impound the passport or a case was made out for recommendation of
impounding the passport to the competent authority by the investigating
officer or the court concerned.

11. As noted above, the applicant was granted interim protection by this
Court in Bail Appln. No.1645/2015. No further substantive order was
passed in this bail petition and the interim order of protection was continued
till 14th January, 2016 when the complainant filed two applications for
impleadment and withdrawal of the interim protection. An application was

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 11 of 15

also filed by the applicant seeking permission to travel to United Kingdom
which was withdrawn on 22nd March, 2016.

12. The interim protection granted to the applicant in case FIR
No.799/2015 under
Sections 498A
/
/
/
IPC continued by this Court
in Bail Appln. No.205/2016. However, on 26th August, 2016 since none
appeared on behalf of the applicant, the interim order in his favour was
vacated. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was arrested and was granted
regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29 th August, 2016,
the relevant portion whereof is reproduced in para 15 hereinafter.

13. It is in these applications that on 22nd April, 2016, learned counsel for
the complainant stated that despite directions given to the husband of the
complainant, he has not deposited his passport. Thus, this Court passed
order dated 22nd April, 2016 as noted above directing him to deposit the
passport on or before 12 noon of 23rd April, 2016. A perusal of the order
sheets as noted above clearly shows that no Court had directed the applicant
Ajit Singh Sambhi to deposit his passport. Only discretion was granted to
the investigating officer to impound the passport which it had no jurisdiction
to do. It is not disputed that till date the investigating officer has sent no
recommendation to the competent authority for impounding of the passport
of Ajit Singh Sambhi. Thus the observation of this Court on 22nd April,
2016 that despite directions the petitioner/applicant has failed to deposit the
passport was on the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant and
directions were issued to the applicant to deposit the passport. This Court in
the present proceedings is refraining from making any observation that the
statement of learned counsel for the complainant was in overreach of the
proceedings of the Court however suffice it is to state that till date there is

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 12 of 15

no order of any competent court directing the petitioner to deposit the
passport and in the order granting bail in FIR No.799/2015 the condition
imposed is that the applicant will seek permission from the Court before
leaving the country and in FIR No.15/2015 that the applicant will inform the
investigating officer of the case as well as the Trial Court/CMM/ACMM.
Thus, the order dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by this Court directing deposit
of the passport was on erroneous statement made by learned counsel for the
complainant.

14. The Supreme Court in the decision reported as (
2008) 3 SCC 674
Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
noting the distinction
between "seizure" and "impounding" held that even the Court cannot
impound the passport. It was held-

"14. In our opinion, while the police may have the power
to seize a passport under
Section 102(1)
CrPC, it does not have
the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can
only be done by the Passport Authority under
Section 10(3)
of the
Passports Act, 1967.

15. It may be mentioned that there is a difference
between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A
seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority
takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in
his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of
time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said
property or document is retained for some period of time, then
such retention amounts to impounding of the property or
document. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edn.), the
word "impound" has been defined to mean,
"to take possession of a document or the like for being held in
custody in accordance with law".

Thus, the word "impounding" really means retention of
possession of goods or a document which has been seized.

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 13 of 15

16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport
under
Section 102
CrPC if it is permissible within the authority
given under
Section 102
CrPC, it does not have power to retain or
impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport
Authority under
Section 10(3)
of the Passports Act. Hence, if the
police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under
Section
CrPC), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to
the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport
deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in

Section 10(3)
of the Act. It is thereafter for the Passport Authority
to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since
impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the Passport
Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person
concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that
any order which has civil consequences must be passed after
giving opportunity of hearing to a party (vide
State of
Orissa v. Binapani Dei
[AIR 1967 SC 1269] ).

17. In the present case, neither the Passport Authority passed
any order of impounding nor was any opportunity of hearing given
to the appellant by the Passport Authority for impounding the
document. It was only the CBI authority which has retained
possession of the passport (which in substance amounts to
impounding it) from October 2006. In our opinion, this was clearly
illegal. Under
Section 10-A
of the Act retention by the Central
Government can only be for four weeks. Thereafter it can only be
retained by an order of the Passport Authority under
Section
10(3)
.

18. In our opinion, even the court cannot impound a passport.
Though, no doubt,
Section 104
CrPC states that the court may, if it
thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in
our opinion, this provision will only enable the court to impound
any document or thing other than a passport. This is because
impounding of a "passport" is provided for in
Section 10(3)
of the
Passports Act.
The Passports Act
is a special law while
CrPC
is a
general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the
general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory
Interpretation (9th Edn., p. 133). This principle is expressed in the
maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 14 of 15

a passport cannot be done by the court under
Section 104
CrPC
though it can impound any other document or thing."

15. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the investigating officer is directed
to release the passport of the applicant. Needless to state that as directed by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 29th August, 2016
while granting bail in case FIR No.799/2015 under
Sections
498A
/
/
/
IPC registered at PS Hari Nagar the petitioner has to
comply with the following directions-

"Considering the entire facts and circumstances in totality,
the bail application is allowed. Accused Ajit Singh is admitted to
bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety in the like amount with the following conditions:

1) He shall be deposing an FDR of Rs.3 lacs in the name of the
court. The same shall not be released to the complainant till
disposal of the case.

2) he shall not leave the country without the permission of the
court.

3) In case, the applicant/accused shifts his residential address,
he shall intimate the same to the IO with immediate effect."

16. The applicant will also comply with the directions passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3 rd November, 2015
while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in FIR No.15/2015 under

Sections 313
/
IPC registered at PS Sunlight Colony.

17. Applications are disposed of accordingly.

18. Order dasti.

(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2017
'v mittal'

Bail Appln. 1645/2015 & 205/2016 Page 15 of 15