# Manoj v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. 4TH Bail Application No 34950 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-v-state-of-u-p-51246
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
147,
148,
149
&
302
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
F.I.R. lodged on 23.08.2016 - Applicant
argued that he has been languishing
in jail since 13.02.2017, but till date
trial has not been concluded - Coaccused granted bail on ground of
delay in conclusion of trial - No chance
of fleeing away from judicial process
or
tampering
with
prosecution
evidence. (Para 2, 4)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
St. submitted that so far as merit of case
was concerned, it was case of murder -
The first shot was fired by co-accused at
deceased and second shot was fired by
applicant, whereby deceased succumbed
to injuries - Eye-witness/ PW-2 has been
examined
and
supported
prosecution
case. (Para 5)

Held, considering St.ment/examinationin-chief
of
PW-1,
wherein
he
has
attributed role of firing to applicant and
co-accused and third bail application of
co-accused and applicant was rejected -
Now, fourth bail application has been filed
mainly on ground of long incarceration of
applicant, inordinate delay in concluding
trial and plea of parity with bail order of
co-accused. (Para 6)

Regarding status of trial of applicant,
out of thirteen prosecution witnesses,
only six have been testified before trial
court in eight years, applicant was in jail
since about seven years and ten months
-
Considering
long
detention
of
applicant, he needs to be set at liberty
to establish his innocence, otherwise,
continued detention will deprive him to
frame his defence - Thus, applicant
entitled to bail and trail court directed to
conclude trail expeditiously. (Para 19,
24)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P.
565
to pass such orders as may
be considered necessary to give
effect to any order under the
Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. It is a
statutory power vested in the High
Court to quash such criminal
proceedings that would dislodge
the charges levelled against the
accused and based on the material
produced, lead to a firm opinion
that the assertions contained in the
charges levelled by the prosecution
deserve to be overruled.
18.8. While exercising the
powers vested in the High Court
under Section 482, Cr.P.C., whether
at the stage of issuing process or at
the stage of committal or even at
the stage of framing of charges,
which are all stages that are prior
to commencement of the actual
trial, the test to be applied is that
the Court must be fully satisfied
that the material produced by the
accused would lead to a conclusion
that their defence is based on
sound, reasonable and indubitable
facts. The material relied on by the
accused should also be such that
would
persuade
a
reasonable
person to dismiss the accusations
levelled against them as false."

96. Therefore, in view of above
discussion, this Court finds a good ground
for quashing the impugned summoning
order as well as entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case.

97.

Accordingly,
the
entire
proceedings
of
Complaint
Case
No.1738/2020, under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act (Alok Singh
Niranjan vs. Ram Sharan Singh) as well as
the summoning order dated 13.01.2021
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalaun, Police Station- Kotwali Orai,
District- Jalaun, pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun; are hereby
quashed.

98. The present application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is,
accordingly,
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

99. A copy of this order be
certified to the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 565
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. 4TH Bail Application No 34950 of
2024

Manoj ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ambrish Kumar Kashyap

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
147,
148,
149
&
302
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
F.I.R. lodged on 23.08.2016 - Applicant
argued that he has been languishing
in jail since 13.02.2017, but till date
trial has not been concluded - Coaccused granted bail on ground of
delay in conclusion of trial - No chance
of fleeing away from judicial process
or
tampering
with
prosecution
evidence. (Para 2, 4)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
St. submitted that so far as merit of case
was concerned, it was case of murder -
The first shot was fired by co-accused at
deceased and second shot was fired by
applicant, whereby deceased succumbed
to injuries - Eye-witness/ PW-2 has been
examined
and
supported
prosecution
case. (Para 5)

Held, considering St.ment/examinationin-chief
of
PW-1,
wherein
he
has
attributed role of firing to applicant and
co-accused and third bail application of
co-accused and applicant was rejected -
Now, fourth bail application has been filed
mainly on ground of long incarceration of
applicant, inordinate delay in concluding
trial and plea of parity with bail order of
co-accused. (Para 6)

Regarding status of trial of applicant,
out of thirteen prosecution witnesses,
only six have been testified before trial
court in eight years, applicant was in jail
since about seven years and ten months
-
Considering
long
detention
of
applicant, he needs to be set at liberty
to establish his innocence, otherwise,
continued detention will deprive him to
frame his defence - Thus, applicant
entitled to bail and trail court directed to
conclude trail expeditiously. (Para 19,
24)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya
@ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar
Bhatacharya Vs National Investigation Agency,
(2022) 1 SCC 695

2. U.O.I. Vs K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 731

3. Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay Vs St. of Mah.,
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.
2543 of 2021, decided on 17.09.2021

4. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs The Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
3606

5. Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695

6. Mubarak Ali Vs St. of U.P., Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8215 of 2024,
decided on 05.09.2024, (Para 7)

7. Balwinder Singh Vs St. of Punjab & anr.,
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
8532 of 2024, decided on 09.09.2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
representing the State.

2.

The
instant
fourth
bail
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed on behalf of the applicantManoj with a prayer to release him on bail
in Case Crime No. 244 of 2016, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of I.P.C.,
Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan, DistrictEtah, during the pendency of trial.

3. First, second and third bail
applications of the accused-applicant were
rejected vide orders dated 05.04.2018,
18.07.2022 and 05.04.2023 in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21550 of 2017,
19321 of 2021 and 35581 of 2022
respectively.

4. It is argued by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 13.02.2017, but till
date his trial has not been concluded. The
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 21168 of 2024 has
granted bail to co-accused Pancham Singh
on the ground of delay in conclusion of
trial, therefore, he may also be released on
12 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P.
567
bail. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no
chance of the applicant of fleeing away
from the judicial process or tampering with
the prosecution evidence. In case he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and will cooperate with the
early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional
Government
Advocate
for
the
State
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
by contending that so far as merit of the
case is concerned, it is a case of murder.
The first shot was fired by co-accused
Pancham Singh at the deceased and second
shot
was
fired
by
applicant-Manoj,
whereby deceased succumbed to injuries.
Eye-witness Yogesh @ Mintu has been
examined before the trial court as PW-2
and he supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and examined the matter in
its entirety, I find that considering the
statement /examination-in-chief of PW-1,
wherein he has attributed the role of firing
to the applicant and co-accused Pancham
Singh as well as the fact that third bail
application of co-accused Pancham Singh
was rejected by the Coordinate Bench, the
third bail application of the applicant was
also
rejected.
Now
this
fourth bail
application, which has been filed mainly on
the ground of long incarceration of the
applicant
and
inordinate
delay
in
concluding the trial as well as plea of parity
with the bail order of co-accused Pancham
Singh, who has now been granted bail by
the Coordinate Bench as noted above.

7. This Court considering the
aforesaid facts, vide order dated 27.09.2024
had called a report from the concerned
Presiding Officer with regard to present
status of trial of the applicant. In
compliance thereof trial court submitted its
report
dated
14.10.2024
mentioning
following dates and events:-

i-F.I.R. was lodged on
23.08.2016.
ii-Charge
sheet
was
submitted on 22.11.2016.
iii-Case was committed to
the
Court
of
Sessions
on
28.11.2016.
iv-Charge
against
the
accused-applicant was framed on
15.01.2018.
v-Examination-in-chief of
PW-1 was recorded on 09.07.2018.
vi-Cross-examination
of
PW-1 was done on 26.11.2018,
18.02.2019 and 06.09.2019.
vii-Examination-in-chief of
PW-2 was recorded on 01.11.2022.
viii-Cross-examination
of
PW-2 was done on 03.11.2022,
15.06.2023 and 16.06.2023.
ix-Examination-in-chief of
PW-3 was recorded on 13.03.2024.
x-Examination-in-chief of
PW-4 was recorded on 30.07.2024.
xi-Examination-in-chief of
PW-5 was recorded on 30.07.2024.
xii-Examination-in-chief of
PW-6 was recorded on 30.07.2024.
xiii-Cross-examination
of
PW-4 was done on 14.08.2024.
xiv-Cross-examination
of
PW-5 was done on 15.10.2024.

8. Vide order of this Court dated
27.09.2024, the Director General of Police,
U.P., Lucknow was also directed to file his
personal affidavit indicating therein as to
why prosecution is not producing the
prosecution witnesses before the trial court
even in heinous matters and being Head of
Police Department in the State of U.P.,
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
what steps have been taken by him to
ensure production of prosecution witnesses
on the dates fixed before the trial court. He
was also directed that if in any matter, he
has fixed the responsibility of the person
concerned, the detail of the same shall also
be brought on record.

9. In compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 27.09.2024, the Director
General of Police, U.P., Lucknow has filed
his personal affidavit dated 16.10.2024
with the stand that on several dates, the
Office of the Director General of Police,
U.P., Lucknow had issued necessary
directions regarding appearance of the
Police Personnel before the trial court on
the date fixed by means of Circulars dated
16.08.2015,
20.10.2015,
04.02.2020,
18.01.2021,
16.08.2023,
10.10.2023,
19.01.2024 and 13.04.2024 but reply with
regard to second query of the Court as
mentioned in the order dated 27.09.2024
was not found satisfactory because no
detail about the action taken against any
erring officer prior to passing of the order
of this Court dated 27.11.2024 was
furnished in the affidavit dated 16.10.2024,
therefore, vide order dated 08.11.2024, a
week's further time was allowed to file
specific reply.

10.
 Thereafter,
the
Director
General of Police, U.P., Lucknow has filed
his second affidavit dated 22.11.2024
annexing district-wise chart relating to
action taken against the erring police
personnel, which indicates that between
27.05.2024 and 18.11.2024 actions have
been initiated against 35 police personnel
by instituting inquiry against them.

11. Now this Court proceeds to
consider the effect of delay in conclusion of
trial on the plea of bail.
12. In Ashim alias Asim Kumar
Haranath
Bhattacharya
alias
Asim
Harinath
Bhattacharya
alias
Aseem
Kumar
Bhatacharya
Vs.
National
Investigation Agency, (2022) 1 SCC 695,
Hon'ble Supreme held as under:

"This
Court
has
consistently
observed
in
its
numerous
judgments
that
the
liberty guaranteed in Part III of the
Constitution would cover within its
protective ambit not only due
procedure and fairness but also
access to justice and a speedy trial
is imperative and the under trials
cannot indefinitely be detained
pending trial. Once it is obvious
that a timely trial would not be
possible and the accused has
suffered
incarceration
for
a
significant period of time, the
Courts
would
ordinarily
be
obligated to enlarge him on bail."
"Deprivation of personal
liberty without ensuring speedy
trial is not consistent with Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
While
deprivation
of
personal
liberty for some period may not be
avoidable, period of deprivation
pending trial/appeal cannot be
unduly long. At the same time,
timely delivery of justice is part of
human rights and denial of speedy
justice is a threat to public
confidence in the administration of
justice."

13. In Union of India Vs. K.A.
Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 731, respondentK.A. Najeeb was granted bail by the High
Court under UAPA. Being aggrieved by the
order of High Court granting bail to
respondent, the appellant-Union of India
12 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P.
569
filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court while
upholding the order of the High Court, after
considering a catena of judgements on the
point, held as under:

"Adverting to the case at
hand, we are conscious of the fact
that the charges levelled against
the respondent are grave and a
serious threat to societal harmony.
Had it been a case at the threshold,
we would have outrightly turned
down
the
respondent's
prayer.
However, keeping in mind the
length of the period spent by him in
custody and the unlikelihood of the
trial being completed anytime soon,
the High Court appears to have
been left with no other option
except to grant bail. An attempt has
been made to strike a balance
between the appellant's right to
lead evidence of its choice and
establish the charges beyond any
doubt
and
simultaneously
the
respondent's
rights
guaranteed
under Part III of our Constitution
have been well protected.
Yet another reason which
persuades
us
to
enlarge
the
Respondent on bail is that Section
43D(5)
of
the
UAPA
is
comparatively less stringent than
Section 37 of the NDPS. Unlike the
NDPS where the competent Court
needs to be satisfied that prima
facie the accused is not guilty and
that he is unlikely to commit
another offence while on bail; there
is no such precondition under the
UAPA. Instead, Section 43D (5) of
UAPA merely provides another
possible ground for the competent
Court to refuse bail, in addition to
the well settled considerations like
gravity of the offence, possibility of
tampering
with
evidence,
influencing the witnesses or chance
of the accused evading the trial by
absconsion etc."

14.

In
Chintan
Vidyasagar
Upadhyay Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No. 2543 of 2021, decided on 17.09.2021,
the petitioner is facing trial for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 396, 201,
109 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC. The
application for bail filed by the petitioner
was dismissed by the High Court on
21.12.2020. Aggrieved thereby, he filed
Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court
after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and scrutinizing the record, while
granting bail to the accused, held that the
petitioner is in custody for nearly 6 years,
the trial is proceedings and 28 witnesses
have been examined and 12 witnesses are
yet to be examined.

15. In Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606, the Supreme
Court held as under:

"On consideration of the
matter, we are of the view that
pending the trial we cannot keep a
person in custody for an indefinite
period of time and taking into
consideration the period of custody
and that the other accused are yet
to lead defence evidence while the
appellant has already stated he
does not propose to lead any
evidence, we are inclined to grant
bail to the appellant on terms and
conditions to the satisfaction of the
trial court."
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. In Indrani Pratim Mukerjea
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695, the
Supreme Court held that "admittedly, the
petitioner has been in custody for 6-1/2
years. We do not intend to comment on the
merits of the case, which might be
detrimental to the interest of either the
prosecution or the defence. Taking into
account the fact that the petitioner has been
in custody for 6-1/2 years and even if 50%
of the remaining witnesses are given up by
the prosecution, the trial will not complete
soon, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner is entitled to be released on bail."

17. The Apex Court in the matter
of Mubarak Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
passed an order dated 05.09.2024 in
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 8215 of 2024 granting bail to accused
who was in custody as an under-trial for
about seven years in connection with
unnatural death of his wife with the
following observations and directions:-

"7. Before parting with the
case, it is noticed that there are
many instances of prolonged trial
and on that basis the accused who
are charged with even heinous
crimes, are getting the opportunity
to seek bail. Since several such
cases have come to the notice of
this Court, we deem it appropriate
to request the Hon'ble Chief Justice
of the Allahabad High Court to
take
appropriate
measures
in
coordination with State Authorities
and
the
concerned
Presiding
Officer of the concerned Courts for
ensuring expeditious conclusion of
Trial particularly in heinous crimes
and crimes against women and
children."
18. The Apex Court in the matter
of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and another passed an order dated
09.09.2024 in Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 8532 of 2024 granting
bail to accused who was in custody as an
under-trial for about four years and three
months, whereas in the said case twentyone prosecution witnesses were already
testified and seventeen more prosecution
witnesses were proposed to be examined
with the following observations:-

"7. An accused has a right
to a fair trial and while a hurried
trial is frowned upon as it may not
give sufficient time to prepare for
the defence, an inordinate delay in
conclusion of the trial would
infringe the right of an accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution."

19. So far as status of trial of the
applicant in the present case is concerned, I
find that out of thirteen prosecution
witnesses, only six prosecution witnesses
have been testified before the trial court in
eight years, whereas the accused-applicant
is in jail since 13.02.2017 (about seven
years and ten months). This Court is also of
the view that the fair and speedy trial of an
accused is a legal and fundamental right.
Under the facts of the case considering the
long detention of the accused-applicant, as
noted above, this Court feels that accused
needs to be set at liberty to establish his
innocence,
otherwise,
his
continued
detention will deprive him to frame his
defence. It is also not in dispute that coaccused Pancham Singh having similar role
has been granted bail on the ground of long
incarceration as noted above, hence, I am
of the view that the applicant has made out
a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail
12 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P.
571
application of the applicant is hereby
allowed.

20. Let the applicant-Manoj, be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned:

(i) That the applicant shall
cooperate with the expeditious
disposal of the trial and shall
regularly attend the court unless
inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant shall
not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release,
the applicant shall not involve in
any criminal activity.

(iv) The identity, status and
residential proof of sureties will be
verified by court concerned before
the release of the applicant on bail.

21. In case of breach of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
court
concerned will be at liberty to cancel the
bail of the applicant.

22. It is made clear that the
observations contained in the instant order
are confined to the issue of bail only and
shall not affect the merit of the trial.

23. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Etah is directed to ensure the
production
of
remaining
prosecution
witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial
court, so that trial of the applicant may be
concluded at the earliest.

24.

On
appearance
of
the
prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall
record their statements on the same date
without granting any adjournment to either
of the parties and also make an endeavour
to conclude the trial of the applicant,
expeditiously.

25. Before parting with the case, I
would like to mention that the right to a
speedy trial is not only an important
safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive
incarceration, to minimize anxiety and
concern accompanying the accusation and
to limit the possibility of impairing the
ability of an accused to defend himself but
also there is a societal interest in providing
a speedy trial. In fact, lot of cases are
coming before the courts for quashing of
proceedings and for bail even in heinous
offences on the ground of inordinate and
undue delay stating that the invocation of
this right even need not await formal
indictment or charge. No person shall be
deprived of his life or his personal liberty
except according to procedure established
by law declares Article 21 of the
Constitution.

26. In view of the above, the
Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow
and
Additional
Director
General
(Prosecution), U.P., Lucknow are directed
to ensure that in heinous matters, on
receiving summons from the court, the
prosecution witnesses are produced before
the court concerned without any delay, so
that the trial of the accused may be
concluded expeditiously.

27. The trial court is also directed
that whenever it issues summons to the
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution witnesses, it shall also ensure
on the next date that the summons issued to
the witnesses, must have duly been issued
by the office and served upon the
person/authority/witness concerned.

28. Copy of this order be sent to
the Director General of Police, U.P.,
Lucknow, the Additional Director General
(Prosecution), U.P., Lucknow, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etah as well as to
the concerned trial court for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 572
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal No. 1020 of 2023

Chandra Prakash Mishra & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arun Kumar, Ashish Kumar Singh

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII
Rule 11 - Court Fees Act,1870 - Section .
13 - Refund of fee paid on memorandum
of appeal. Issue: Whether, in a case where
the decision of the trial court rejecting the
plaint is reversed in appeal, the plaintiffs
are required to again deposit court fees
before the trial court after remand? -
Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, casts an
obligation upon the appellate court to
grant
a
certificate
to
the
appellant
authorizing him to receive back from the
Collector the full amount of fees paid on
the memorandum of appeal, and the
proviso restricts such right to the extent
of the amount originally paid. (Para 13)

B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII
Rule 11 - Court Fees Act,1870 - Section 13
- Remand - Refund of fee paid on
memorandum of appeal. In the instant
case, plaintiff failed to deposit the ad
valorem court fees. Plaint was rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Before the
trial court, court fees of ₹700/- were paid.
In the First Appeal, before the High Court,
Appellants deposited the entire court fees
as determined by the trial court, i.e., court
fees of ₹2,27,000/- were deposited by the
appellant. Held: Appellant not liable to
again pay court fees after remand, and the
court fees of ₹2,27,000/- deposited before
the High Court were held to be sufficient
in relation to the original suit. Appellant
authorized to receive back from the
Collector,
Prayagraj,
court
fees
of
₹2,27,000/-. (Para 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chandra Bhushan Misra Vs Jayatri Devi, AIR
1969 All 142 (FB)

2. St. of U.P. Vs Chandra Bhushan Misra, AIR
1980 SC 591

3. Srivatsa Goswami Vs Anant Prasad Singh &
anr., 2024 (162) ALR 834

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

ON THE ISSUE OF REFUND OF
COURT
FEES
IN
A
CASE
OF
REMAND

1. Heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manoj
Kumar Singh, for the appellants, Shri
Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the contesting defendant-respondent, Shri
Arun
Kumar,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No.4 and Shri Vinod Kumar