2025:HHC:3002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1759 of 2024 Reserved on: 10.01.2025 Announced on: 15.01.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sumit Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Sumit Sharma], who is in custody since 26.09.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS.'], originating from FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023, registered with police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sh. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Learned Counsel is that a false case as in FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 has been registered against the bail petitioner. It is averred that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not applicable to the instant case. It is further further averred that recovery of Heroin/Chitta 10.67 grams is not attributable to the bail petitioner and no recovery has been made from him. It is further averred that the prosecution story is just to implicate him. It is further averred that there is no evidence to connect the bail petitioner with the accusation of the offence. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail, before the learned Special Judge-II Hamirpur, which was dismissed on 03.02.2024 and the second bail application was also dismissed on 16.07.2024 by the learned Special Judge-II, Hamirpur. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before this Court, which

-3- 2025:HHC:3002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.5.2024. 2(i) It is further averred that the bail petitioner has narrated the incidents of his previous accusation in six NDPS cases, in para 13 of the bail petition. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has furnished the undertakings that he shall abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not flee away from the investigation or the trial. It is further averred that bail petitioner shall not caused any inducement threat or promise or to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. It is further averred that during the course of hearing that prolonged incarceration of the petitioner for the last about 1 year and 3 months has violated and curtailed the persons liberty of petitioner and right to speedy trial has also been denied to him as out of the 23 witnesses only 4 PWs have been examined as on date and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

In this background the prayer for bail has

-4- 2025:HHC:3002 been filed before this Court.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3(i). Pursuant to issuance of notice dated 24.08.2024, the State Authorities have filed the status report dated 16.09.2024.

3(ii). A perusal of the Status Report narrates the sequence of events that on 25.09.2023, at about 9.20 p.m, a police party headed by ASI Raj Kumar and others were on patrolling duty at Dosarka, Mattan Sidh, Kohli and Bhira and about 11.45 p.m. ASI Raj Kumar received an information that the bail petitioner Sumit Kumar @ Shinglu and Sunil Thakur @ Sonu, who were travelling in Vehicle No. HP 22D-8091, from Bilaspur to Hamirpur were carrying Heroin-Chitta. Based on such information the vehicle was stopped by the police at 12.20 a.m at Didwin on 26.09.2023. On making inquires the bail petitioner got out of the vehicle and disclosed his identity and thereafter the contraband was recovered which after weighing turn

-5- 2025:HHC:3002 out to be 10.67 grams Heroin/Chitta. Thereafter sampling was done and Rukka was sent and thereafter FIR was registered.

3(iii). Pursuant to registration of FIR the investigation was started by the police and statement under 161 Cr.PC were recorded and thereafter inventory under Section 52 of the Act was prepared. Samples of case property was sent to SFSL, Junga and as per report of SFSL, it contained Dicetyl morphine (Heroin). Both the accused were made to undergo medical examination. Blood sample so taken was sent to RFSL and RFSL submitted a report confirming Ketamine and Tramadol were detected in blood sample of the petitioner. Status report indicates that out of total 15 cases 6 NDPS cases were registered against the bail petitioner.

In these circumstances, the prayer for bail has been opposed.

4. Heard Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Pratyush Sharma,

-6- 2025:HHC:3002 Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent(s).

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

5. In order to test, the claim for enlargement on bail, it is necessary to have a recap of the provisions of Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under :-

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable ,--

(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-

(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or

(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAILS:

6. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the

-8- 2025:HHC:3002 cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab ( 1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan , (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee , (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC 24, that bail is to be granted where the allegation is frivolous or groundless and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point towards the accusation. However, depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused in case, the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and the offence is serious, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and the trial, and the Character, including past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension

-9- 2025:HHC:3002 of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc; and then in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi , (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; have been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj , 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, as under:

6(i). In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power to grant or refuse bail is an extraordinary power,

- 10 - 2025:HHC:3002 which has to be sparingly exercised subject to the anvil of the time tested parameters and restrictions imposed in law. It is trite law that while considering prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the factum of prolonged pre-conviction incarceration and the right of speedy trial has to be taken into account, in the background of the fact as to whether delay in trial was attributable to an accused or not. Another added factor and not the sole factor of past criminal antecedents; and the factum as to whether an accused has misused concession-liberty granted earlier. While considering the prayer for bail, the balance has to be carved out between the liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the societal interests, including danger of justice being thwarted in case the bail is granted.

6(ii). This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus

- 11 - 2025:HHC:3002 Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and the larger public/state interests. It is in this background, that the claim for bail is to be examined by a Court without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in light of broad-parameters referred to above .

6(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under the NDPS Act does not have any vested right or an

- 12 - 2025:HHC:3002 automatic claim for bail, merely on the ground, that alleged quantity of contraband is either small or intermediate. While considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop of broad parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above .

The exception to this principle is that the enlargement on bail {be it relates to either small or intermediate quantity of contraband} can be extended depending on facts of each case, in case, the prima facie accusation does not points towards involvement and no reasonable grounds exit, when, no recovery was made by the police from the accused or when, the alleged recovery by police appears to be highly doubtful without there being any connecting material to infer prima facie accusation and after taking into

- 13 - 2025:HHC:3002 account other parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above .

If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.

27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual

- 16 - 2025:HHC:3002 guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.

National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:

REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL:

BAIL NOT TO BE DENIED BY WAY OF PENALTY :

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".

55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.

56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.

57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering

- 21 - 2025:HHC:3002 with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant."

10(i). While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act ], the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.________of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in the following terms:-

RIGOURS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION 37 OF NDPS] TO GIVE WAY FOR BAIL BASED ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION & TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

11(i). Reiterating that statutory embargoes in Special Enactments have to yield in case of prolonged incarceration when, weighed against the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, by granting bail in the following terms:-

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances as detailed hereinabove, once the bail petitioner has suffered incarceration for

- 28 - 2025:HHC:3002 almost 1 year and 3 months now [since 26.9.2023] and even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason, that out of a total 23 PWs only 4 PWs, have been examined therefore, in facts of instant case, any further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner and that too on mere conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Continued detention certainly violates the principle of "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". Even the State Authorities have failed to ensure speedy trial and considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial and therefore, on totality of circumstances and the mandate of law in the cases of Guddan alias Roop Narayan, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Manish Sisodia, Kalvakuntla Kavitha, Senthil Balaji and

- 29 - 2025: HHC:3002 Partha Chatterjee [supra], the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

ABOVE BROADER PRINCIPLES OF BAIL APPLIED IN GRAVER OFFENCES APPLIED TO LESSER GRAVER ACCUSATION:

PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:

Balah 13(i). Before analyzing the contention of the Learned State Counsel it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of law, in broader sense, as to whether the past criminal antecedents are relevant and in what circumstances and extent thereof and in what circumstances and to what extent past

- 31 - 2025:HHC:3002 antecedents turn out to be irrelevant or not much relevant while considering the claim of an accused for bail, which are detailed here-in-below. 13(ii). While negativating the plea that the past criminal antecedents {i.e. 36 criminal cases of serious nature} cannot solely be the ground for denying bail or in interfering with the bail order granted by a Court when, an accused was undergoing incarceration coupled with the fact that no cogent material was placed on record revealing that during bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice, has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashidi versus State of Uttar Pradesh , (2012) 2 SCC 382, in the following terms;

4. On the basis of a written complaint in the Police Station, Phoolpur, FIR No 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was registered. The second respondent was arrested only on 24.08.2009. It was further stated by the appellant that the accused is a habitual criminal and

- 32 - 2025:HHC:3002 has a criminal background having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences against him.

10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

11. In the case relating to FIR No. 63 of 2009, he was arrested and in jail since 24.08.2009. Another important aspect is that after filing of charge-sheet on 15.07.2010, prosecution examined two important witnesses as PWs 1 and 2. This was the position prevailing on 26.07.2010. Even thereafter, now more than a year has rolled. Counsel appearing for the State assured that the trial will not be prolonged at the instance of the prosecution and ready to complete the evidence within a period to be directed by this Court. The other objection of the appellant for grant of bail is that he had received threats from the second respondent and his supporters warning him not to pursue the case against him. It is brought to our notice that based on the representations of

- 33 - 2025:HHC:3002 the appellant, adequate protection had already been provided to him.

13. Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments.

14. With the above observation, finding no merit for interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is dismissed.

13(iii). While granting bail to an accused having

- 34 - 2025:HHC:3002 criminal antecedents and was facing incarceration for 7 months and when, no prima-facie accusation or reasonable grounds existed, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, in the following terms:-

13(iv). While extending the concession of bail despite past criminal antecedents, on principle that 'bail is rule and jail is an exception', benefit of bail, and an accused is presumed to be innocent and in the guise of pending cases, the presumption of guilt could not be inferred as has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Mrityunjay Kumar Singh , 2024 SCC OnLine

- 37 - 2025:HHC:3002 SC 852, in the following terms:-

15. As rightly contended by Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent, in the first case afore- mentioned the respondent has been acquitted by judgment dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure R-11). In so far as the cases at Serial No.2 and 3 (supra), the respondent has been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure R-12) and order dated 10.07.2020. In yet another case registered by Chandwa PS Case No. 225 of 2023 the respondent has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in ABP No. 426 of 2023.

cumulatively, it would reflect that respondent having been enlarged on bail conditionally and the conditions so stipulated having not been violated and undisputedly the appellant-state having not sought for cancellation of the bail till date would be the prime reason for us not to entertain this appeal. In fact, the apprehension of the Union of India that respondent is likely to pose threat to the witnesses and there was a threat posed to the complainant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, would not be a ground to set aside the impugned order enlarging the respondent on bail in as much in the case referred against the respondent for the said offence he has been granted bail. That apart we are of the considered view that there are no other overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which out weighs the liberty granted by the High Court under the impugned order.

17. Hence, we are of the considered view that interference is not warranted. However, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution it would suffice to observe that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail in the event any of the conditions being violated by the respondent and in the event of such an application being filed we see no reason as to why said application would not be considered on its own merits by the jurisdictional court independently and without being influenced by its earlier observations. We also make it expressly clear that the observations made under the impugned order would be restricted to the consideration of the prayer for bail and the jurisdictional court without being influenced by any of the observation

- 40 - 2025:HHC:3002 shall proceed to adjudicate the case on merits after trial. Subject to the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed." 13(v). While dealing with validity of bail order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated that the criminal antecedents were not much relevant in case, no prima facie case was made out and the period of incarceration was prolonged, in Ayub Khan versus State of Rajasthan , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, in the following terms:-

13(vi). Pendency of other criminal cases cannot

- 42 - 2025:HHC:3002 be invoked for denying bail, when, no prima facie case exists and prolonged incarceration was writ large, has been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270, in the following terms:-

In facts of instant case, the plea of Learned State Counsel is examined and the plea is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that firstly, the veracity of the accusation is yet to be tested examined and proved during the trial; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2023 and is undergoing incarceration for almost 1 year; 3 months and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 23 PWs only 4 PWs have been examined as yet ; and fourthly, delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner ; and fifthly, an accused is presumed to

- 44 - 2025:HHC:3002 be innocent unless proven guilty ; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice ; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him earlier; and lastly, the State Authorities have adequate safeguards by moving the Courts for cancellation of bail in case there was any violation of or misuse of the concession- liberty and once the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial therefore, in these circumstances, the past criminal antecedents or

- 45 - 2025:HHC:3002 pendency of other cases as discussed above cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, so as to deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on totality of circumstances, the claim of petitioner for bail carries weight and is granted, in peculiar facts of this case.

TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. In these circumstances, plea for bail carries weight and is accepted.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTING JUSTICE:

NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR COURT:

- 47 - 2025:HHC:3002

17. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State [despite the fact that nothing has been placed on record that petitioner may flee away], yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court imposes stringent conditions in later part of this order.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

18. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law, as referred to above, and in the peculiar facts of this case, the instant petition is allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Sumit Sharma] on bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:-

Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ;

(v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court;

(vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, nearest to his native place, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11 A.M., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour;

(vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court;

(viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case;

(x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises;

(xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after;

(xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.;

- 49 - 2025:HHC:3002

19. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove.

20. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court.

21. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur for information and necessary action in terms of this order.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.