Allahabad High Court
Vishal Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 May, 2026
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:110426
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20230 of 2025 Reserved On : 30.04.2026 Delivered on : 13.05.2026
Vishal Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anil Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Indradeo
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Indradeo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to the effect that this application filed under Section 528 BNSS against the bail cancellation order is not maintainable inasmuch as the applicant has remedy to surrender before the learned trial court in pursuance of the bail cancellation order and thereafter he may apply for fresh bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant has no other alternative remedy and if the bail cancellation order itself is illegal, the same may be challenged before this Court under this jurisdiction. He cannot be compelled to surrender before the learned trial court in pursuance of an illegal order. Therefore, the application filed under Section 528 BNSS is maintainable.
4. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. This Court in the case of Smt. Rukhsana vs. State of U.P. and another (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14905 of 2012) has already held that if the bail is cancelled by the learned trial court, the accused may challenge the same before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS, as the case may be. The relevant paragraph of Smt. Rukhsana (supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-
"4. When an order has been passed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. cancelling the bail order recorded under Section 437, the accused would have two courses open. It is always his right to move for bail afresh before the proper forum but his right to challenge the validity of the order of cancellation of bail cannot be taken away simply for the reason that he has a right to pray for bail again. This challenge could not be made in a petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C. as an order recording bail or its cancellation is but an interlocutory order and the validity of the order, therefore, could only be challenged in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P.C. invoking the inherent powers of the Court to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The objection of the complainant in this behalf is thus not tenable and this Court can look to the validity of the cancellation of bail in exercise of its powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. It must also be indicated that cancellation of bail is normally to be made only on the proof of misuse of privilege of bail either by abscondence or by interference with investigation or by threats to witnesses."
6. Andhra Pradesh High Court In the case of Janapala Krishna Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl. Revision Case No. 1804 of 2014) has held that 482 petition is also maintainable. Relevant part of judgment is being reproduced below:
"In fact, a detailed order is passed by this Court regarding remedy is to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not by revision against the cancellation of bail order, vide order dated 15.09.2014 in Crl. R.C. No. 1506 of 2014. Needless to say, the remedy is to move afresh bail application, or the other remedy if at all to impugn the cancellation order of the bail is only under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interference within the inherent power of the High Court and not to impugn by maintaining the revision."
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 has been pleased to held that :-
"When Section 439(2) grants to the High Court the power to cancel bail, it necessarily follows that such powers can be exercised also in respect of Orders passed by the Court of Sessions. Of course cancellation of bail has to be on principles set out hereinabove and only in appropriate cases. Further, even if it is an interlocutory order, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is not affected by the provisions of Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 on the basis of self-imposed restriction is a different aspect. It cannot be denied that for securing the ends of justice, the High Court can interfere with the order which causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified [Re. Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharasthra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Krishnan and Another v. Krishnaveni and Another (1997) 4 SCC 241]."
8. From the various judgments of High Courts and Apex Court, it is clear that High Court has inherent power to examine the validity of order passed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, present application is maintainable and this Court under this jurisdiction can examine the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the court concerned under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / 483 BNSS.
9. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. has no force and is hereby rejected.
10. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 528 BNSS for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2025 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the bail granted to the applicant on 6.4.2023 by Juvenile Justice Board was cancelled.
11. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 1.2.2023 at 21:32 hours bearing Case Crime No. 41 of 2023, under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi with regard to the alleged incident dated 31.1.2023. The applicant was named in the first information report and it is alleged by the informant that his daughter, aged about 17 years, had left her house and joined the company of the applicant. The high-school certificate of the victim was collected by the Investigating Officer, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 2.4.2006. The victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she was in love with the applicant for the last three years and they wanted to get married but her family members were against this relationship. Thereafter, on 31.1.2023 at 07:00 PM she left her house and went to Mughalsarai, where marriage in a temple was solemnized between the applicant and the victim and they started living together as a husband and wife. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that her family members were against her studies, therefore, she left her house on 31.1.2023 at 07:00 PM and went to the house of her aunt, where she stayed for 7-8 days. After 7-8 days she came back to her home. The victim further stated that a false first information report was lodged against the applicant and she went to the house of her aunt on her own will. She further stated that she had made a false statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. The applicant claimed himself to be a juvenile on the basis of high-school certificate, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 1.1.2006. He was declared juvenile and thereafter bail was granted to him by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 6.4.2023.
13. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in this case under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The learned Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act referred the matter of the applicant to the children court / POCSO court, where charges were framed on 24.1.2024.
14. After framing of charges on 24.1.2024, another first information report was lodged by the victim of the present case against the applicant and one Golu on 27.6.2024 in respect of the alleged incident dated 19.6.2024 under Sections, 384, 386, 506 IPC at Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi as Case Crime No. 290 of 2024. It is alleged in the first information report dated 27.6.2024 that earlier on, the father of the victim, lodged a first information report against the applicant as Case Crime No. 41 of 2023 and the applicant had sent several obscene photos / videos and vulgar messages to the victim and demanded an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, failing which, the victim with her husband would be done to death. It is also alleged in the first information report that the applicant is a man of criminal nature and member of a gang. After lodgment of the first information report on 27.6.2024, father of the victim i.e. the first informant of Case Crime No. 41 of 2023, moved a bail cancellation application on 1.7.2024. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides, cancelled the bail of the applicant vide order dated 21.4.2025, which is the order impugned herein.
15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was a juvenile offender and he was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 27.3.2023 and it was found by the Juvenile Justice Board that the applicant was aged about 17 years and 01 month on the date of alleged incident. The order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 27.3.2023 was not challenged by the informant of the present case. As per the report of the District Probation Officer, appended as Annexure-10 to the application, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and nothing wrong was stated by his neighbours against him. The applicant stated to the counsellor that he was friends with the victim. No criminal antecedent of the applicant was reported by the District Probation Officer. The applicant was enlarged on interim bail on 22.2.2023 and the same was made absolute on 6.4.2023. In the meantime, no offence was allegedly committed by the applicant.
16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a false first information report was lodged against the applicant on 27.6.2024 in respect of the alleged incident dated 19.6.2024, under Sections 384, 386, 506 IPC. The delay of 8 days in the lodging of the first information report has not been properly explained. The co-accused Golu was also named in the aforesaid first information report, however, no charge-sheet was submitted against him. Even the investigation was dropped under Sections 384, 386 IPC against the applicant and charge-sheet was submitted on 19.8.2024 against the applicant only under Section 506 IPC and Section 67-A of Information and Technology (Amendment) Act. It is further submitted that just after lodging the first information report on 27.6.2024, the first informant of the present case i.e. father of the victim moved bail cancellation application on 1.7.2024. Infact, the first information report dated 27.6.2024 was lodged to make a ground of cancellation of bail and no such offence as alleged in the first information report dated 27.6.2024, was ever committed by the applicant. The applicant did not violate any condition of the bail. It is also submitted that as per age certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the victim was a major girl aged between 19-20 years and the first information report dated 27.6.2024 was lodged by her under pressure of her father / the informant of the present case.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded in the present case on 28.2.2025 as PW-1, wherein no such allegation in respect of first information report dated 27.6.2024 has been levelled. The victim has already been examined in the trial court and there is no chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses. No such application for providing police protection to the victim was moved by the informant of the present case. The victim did not level any allegation against the applicant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 41 of 2023, arising out of first information report dated 1.2.2023, therefore, question of tampering the witness especially the victim does not arise.
18. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant / opposite party no. 2 submitted that the bail of the applicant was rightly rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21.4.2025 and non bailable warrant has been issued by the trial court but the applicant is absconding and not appearing before the trial court. The applicant has violated the condition of the bail, which was granted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The conditional bail was granted in favour of the applicant but he again committed offence under Section 506 IPC and 67-A of I.T. Act. The charge-sheet was submitted against him in subsequent offence too.
19. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that only registration of first information may not be a sole ground to cancel the previous bail, granted by the Juvenile Justice Board, in favour of the applicant. For the purpose of cancellation of bail, it is required to prove by the cogent and reliable evidence regarding the fact that supervening circumstances have arisen after the grant of bail and the applicant is misusing the liberty or tampering the evidence or threatening the victim or other witnesses or interfering in the trial proceedings.
20. From perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in the trial court on 28.2.2025, it is clear that no allegation was levelled by the victim against the applicant that he committed any offence on 19.6.2024 as alleged in the first information report dated 27.6.2024.
21. In the case of Godson Versus State of Kerala, 2022(3) Crimes 191, it has been held as under:-
"2. The petitioners were arrested in connection with the said case and later, as per order dated 9.2.2018 in Crl.M.C.No.197/2018, the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, granted bail to them subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that they should not involve in any other crime of similar nature during the bail period. Subsequently, the investigation in the said case is completed, and the final report has been submitted.
3. Later, Crl.M.P.Nos.249/82022 and 247/2022 were submitted by the Public Prosecutor for cancellation of their bail. The sole reason highlighted in the said petition is that both the petitioners are subsequently involved in Crime No.1159/2021 of Kuruppampady Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,308,324,506(ii)and 294(b) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, as per orders dated 24.2.2022 allowed the said applications after hearing the petitioners and thereby, the bail granted to them was cancelled. These orders are now under challenge in this Crl.M.Cs.
*** *** ****
7. The conditions to be imposed while granting bail, are contemplated under Sections 437(3) r/w. Section 439(1)(a) of Cr.PC. The condition not to involve in similar offences during the bail period is something which is specifically stipulated in the aforesaid provision. Since such a condition is specifically mentioned in the statute, that would indicate the importance of such condition and the necessity to insist on the compliance of the same. However, the question that arises here is whether a violation of the said condition should result in the cancellation of the bail in all the cases. In my view, merely because of the reason that such a condition was imposed while granting bail to the accused, that would not result in the cancellation of bail automatically. This is particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is something that affects the personal liberty of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless there are reasons justifying or warranting such an order, the bail already granted cannot be cancelled. In Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"5. Rejection of bail in a non - bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to. interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non - bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
The aforesaid view was reiterated in X v. State of Telangana and Another reported in [(2018) 16 SCC 511].
8. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018)3 SCC 22], it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the manner as follows:
"It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
Therefore, while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of non compliance of the conditions, the court has to consider the question whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated."
22. The new accusation must be considered in light of the fact that whether it indicates a pattern of criminal behaviour that poses a threat to the community or the trial process. If the new case is of minor nature and does not suggest a threat, it may not warrant bail cancellation in more serious older case.
23. Cancellation of bail is an order, which interferes with the liberty of the individual. Hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. It stands on a footing these scenarios are also different. In a plethora of decisions, the Supreme Court has identified and listed out a list of circumstances in the nature of being supervening circumstances, which could warrant an order from the court leading to cancellation of bail. The list in the words of the court itself is illustrative and not exhaustive. The Supreme Court to illustrate the same in the case of Abdul Basit alias Raju & others v. Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754. The Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrate the grounds of cancellation of the bail which are as follows (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
24. Thus, in cancellation of bail, the Court has ample power to exercise enough discretion. But no guidelines is given by the statute as to when and how it is to be exercised. However, the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled when the person on bail commits the very same offence, hampers the investigation, tampers with the evidence, runs away to a foreign country, goes underground/beyond the control of his sureties or commits any act of violence against the police/witnesses. In such cases, the High Court/Court of session can direct any person released on bail be arrested. Nevertheless, the power is to be cautiously used in due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the cancellation of bail application should be based upon the principle that whether the accused is fleeing from justice or tempering with the evidences/witnesses or he has violated the bail conditions.
25. Bail granted once should not be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner. Very cogent reasons are necessary for cancelling the bail already granted. The absence of any post-release misconduct is a compelling reason to reject an application for cancellation of bail. While considering the bail cancellation application, the question of enough liberty of the accused is to be put in juxtaposition with a societal concerned in the crime at hand, the letter desertion priority over the over-more.
26. The reason for cancelling bail and the grounds for rejecting bail are distinct circumstances, each requiring a different approach. When considering a bail application, the court focuses on the potential breach of bail conditions and must maintain an open and flexible stance. In contrast, when assessing a bail cancellation application, the court adopts a more stringent approach, examining not only the possibility of violations but also whether actual violations have occurred. In this context, the court demands concrete evidence or wrongdoing.
27. The considerations that weigh with the higher court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a 'prima facie' case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.
28. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellant Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail as held in the cases of Puran v. Ram Bilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and another, (2008) 13 SCC 584.
29. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.
30. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held in para 12:-
"12. It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court."
31. It is well settled that the consideration applicable for cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging the order of grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different. While considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on that count etc. Whereas, in an order challenging the grant of bail on the ground that it has been granted illegally, the consideration is whether there was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail.
32. From perusal of the record, it is manifest that the applicant is a juvenile offender and no criminal antecedent has been reported against him. The victim has already been examined in the trial court on 28.2.2025 and she has not levelled any allegation in respect of averment made in first information report dated 27.6.2024.
33. Initially, in the present first information report the victim did not level any allegation against the applicant during the course of investigation, therefore, there was no reason for the applicant to extend threat to the victim. The applicant has not violated any condition imposed by the Juvenile Justice Board while granting bail to him on 6.4.2023.
34. The court has observed a trend now a days that after grant of bail or anticipatory bail, the informants lodge fresh first information report or complaints in order to create a ground for cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail. In this matter also, the first information report was lodged on 27.6.2024 and bail cancellation application was moved on 1.7.2024 though the investigation in the first information report dated 27.6.2024 was pending. Part of the prosecution case, mentioned in the first information report dated 27.6.2024 was found to be incorrect by the Investigating Officer. He did not submit any charge-sheet against the co-accused Golu and allegation in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 IPC were also found to be incorrect against the applicant. It appears that subsequent first information report was lodged against the applicant to create a ground for cancellation of bail.
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial court wrongly and illegally cancelled the bail of the applicant without considering the following facts of the case:-
(i) The applicant is a juvenile offender and aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged offence. The condition mentioned under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act was not violated by him.
(ii) The victim did not level any allegation against the applicant when her statement was recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the applicant has no reason to believe that the victim will give testimony against him.
(iii) No criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant. The neighbours of the applicant did not raise any complaint against the applicant.
(iv) The subsequent first information report was lodged by the victim under Sections 384, 386, 506 IPC, however, after investigation charge-sheet was not submitted under Sections 384, 386 IPC. Co-accused Golu was exonerated. The charge-sheet was submitted under Section 506 IPC and I.T. Act, which is not such kind of offence, on which the bail should be cancelled.
(v) The victim did not state anything regarding the subsequent alleged offence mentioned in the first information report dated 27.6.2024 when she appeared in the witness box on 28.2.2025.
(vi) The subsequent first information report dated 27.6.2024 was lodged after a delay of 8 days, which was not sufficiently explained by the prosecution. Part of the prosecution case was found to be false.
(vii) The same kind of offence was not committed by the applicant, if any, Earlier he was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section of POCSO Act despite the fact that the victim did not level any allegation against him. In another offence, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 506 IPC and Section 67-A of I.T. Act, which is an entirely different offence. The allegation in the subsequent first information report dated 27.6.2024 is yet to be proved in the trial court.
36. Thus, in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the trial court wrongly and illegally rejected the bail of the applicant, granted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The bail rejection order dated 21.4.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act-3) / Court No. 7, Varanasi in S.T. No. 889 of 2023 (State vs. Vishal Rajbhar) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section of POCSO Act, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi as well as other consequential orders, if any, issuing coercive process against the applicants are not tenable and, therefore, the same are hereby set aside.
37. With the aforesaid observations, present application stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) May 13, 2026 Lalit Shukla