Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakash Pansoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
1 CRA-4480-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4480 of 2025
AAKASH PANSORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Garg - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.04.2025 passed by 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No.841/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 Years R.I., 5 Years R.I., 2 Years R.I. and 2 Years R.I. with fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2017, a direct recruitment process was conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Police for the post of Constable (Band). Pursuant to the selection process, an order dated 22.09.2017 was issued by the Inspector General of Police directing that appointments of selected candidates be finalized subject to mandatory verification of their credentials.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 2 CRA-4480-2025
3. The accused, Akash Pansoria, was one of the candidates selected under the said recruitment and was allotted to the 7th Battalion, SAF (Visbal), Bhopal. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Commandant of the Battalion initiated verification of the accused's documents, including his educational qualifications.
4. During the course of verification, the accused submitted a High School marksheet purportedly issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Open School, Bhopal. The said marksheet was forwarded to the concerned Board for authentication. Upon scrutiny, the Board authorities found that the particulars mentioned in the marksheet did not match their official records. Consequently, the document was declared false, forged, and fabricated.
5. On 23.11.2017, the Assistant Director (Records) of the Board communicated the said discrepancy to the authorities and requested initiation of appropriate legal action against the accused. Thereafter, on 29.11.2017, the Commandant, 7th Battalion, SAF, submitted a formal complaint to the Superintendent of Police (South), Bhopal, reporting that the accused had used a forged marksheet in order to secure government employment.
6. The matter was subsequently forwarded to Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal, where it was entered into the police station records on 12.12.2017 for preliminary inquiry. Upon completion of the inquiry, it was prima facie found that the accused had committed acts of cheating and forgery. Accordingly, Crime No. 35/2018 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 3 CRA-4480-2025
7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer carried out spot inspection and prepared a site map. Relevant documents, including the forged marksheet, were seized. The accused was taken into custody, and his memorandum statement was recorded, leading to further discovery of facts. Statements of witnesses were also recorded to substantiate the allegations.
8. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. Considering the seriousness of the offence, particularly under Section 467 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
9. The accused abjured guilt and pleaded not guilty, claiming to be tried. Consequently, the case proceeded to the stage of recording of evidence.
10. The prosecution alleges that the accused knowingly and dishonestly used a forged and fabricated marksheet as genuine with the intention of securing a government employment, thereby committing offences of cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record and is liable to be set aside.
12. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in convicting the appellant under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code without the prosecution having established the foundational ingredients of "forgery" as defined under Sections 463 and 464 IPC. It is argued that to sustain a conviction under Section 467 IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 4 CRA-4480-2025 prove that the accused himself made or fabricated the alleged forged document. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the appellant was the maker or creator of the alleged forged marksheet.
13. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case merely establishes that the marksheet was found to be forged, but there is no evidence connecting the appellant with the act of its preparation or fabrication. Mere possession or use of a document, in absence of proof of its creation, cannot attract the offence under Section 467 IPC.
14. It is also contended that the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly reveals that the appellant had obtained the said marksheet from one Vishnu Parashar, who was running a coaching institute at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. This explanation was consistently maintained by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lends assurance to his defence and probabilizes his lack of knowledge regarding the forged nature of the document.
15. Learned counsel argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the marksheet was forged. In absence of such knowledge or mens rea, the essential ingredients of forgery are not satisfied, and therefore the conviction under Section 467 IPC cannot be sustained.
16. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities. Despite the appellant having Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 5 CRA-4480-2025 disclosed the source of the document, no effective steps were taken to investigate the role of the said Vishnu Parashar. Although it was later revealed that the said person had expired, the prosecution made no effort to trace the origin of the forged marksheet or to identify the actual perpetrator of the forgery. This failure to collect the best possible evidence renders the prosecution case doubtful.
17. Learned counsel thus submits that in the absence of any evidence proving that the appellant made or fabricated the document, and in the absence of proof of requisite criminal intent to cause damage or injury, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 467 IPC are not made out.
18. Accordingly, it is prayed that the conviction of the appellant under Section 467 IPC be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of the said charge.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the prosecution has duly proved that the marksheet submitted by the appellant was false and fabricated, as confirmed by the competent authority of the M.P. Rajya Open Shiksha Parishad, Bhopal. Learned counsel for the State further contends that the appellant himself produced the said marksheet during the recruitment process for securing government employment and thereby represented it to be genuine. Such conduct clearly establishes that the appellant used a forged document for obtaining unlawful gain. It is also argued that even if the appellant claims that the marksheet was provided by one Vishnu Parashar, the same does not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 6 CRA-4480-2025 absolve him of criminal liability. The appellant was under a legal obligation to verify the authenticity of the document before using it for official purposes. His failure to do so, coupled with the fact that the marksheet pertains to a year in which no examination was conducted, clearly indicates that he acted with intent to deceive. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has not committed any illegality in recording the conviction. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper evaluation of documentary as well as oral evidence and do not call for interference by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court be affirmed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
20. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated that Vishnu Parashar, who used to run coaching classes, had provided him the marksheet. He further stated that he had appeared in the examination conducted by the Open School and thereafter the marksheet was given to him, and that he had no knowledge that the same was false. However, the Assistant Director (Records), M.P. Rajya Open Shiksha Parishad, Bhopal, vide letter dated 23.11.2017, confirmed that the marksheet did not match with the official record and was thus false and fabricated. Further, vide letter dated 20.11.2019, it has been informed that one Seema Pandey (Roll No. 0301920690) had appeared in the examination in the year 2009, and that no examination was conducted in the year 2010, which is the year mentioned in the marksheet submitted by the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 7 CRA-4480-2025 said Vishnu Parashar expired on 01.01.2015 and, therefore, could not be examined before the Court.
21. On a careful appreciation of the entire record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the appellant, and if not, whether the offence under Section 420 IPC is established.
22. Learned counsel of appellant argued that the marksheet is not considered a "valuable security" or a corporeal property for the purpose of certain criminal charges. Marksheet is not a tangible corporeal property that can be transferred, consumed, or spent, unlike movable property (e.g., money or jewelry). Incorporeal property is defined as the ownership of a property that cannot be touched or felt. Hence, it is intangible in nature. For instance, shares, copyrights, patents, trademarks, stakes, among others are intangible or incorporeal properties. Therefore, the mark sheet does not cover in the definition of the property. Learned counsel further submitted that the marksheet cannot be held as valuable security within the meaning of the Section 30 of IPC therefore, the charge under section 467 of IPC could not be proved. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamdhikari Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 551. Therefore, appellant/accused may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.
23. Definition "Document" is given in the section 29 of the Indian penal code. According to that the word "document" denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 8 CRA-4480-2025 more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter. Explanation 1. -It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not.
24. Section 470 of the Indian Penal code define Forged document.-A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or electronic record. It is also clear that the copy prepared by photocopy machine is also a document. It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not. Therefore, It is not required that the original of the photocopy also exist there. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable that the photocopy document not covered in the definition of the document.
25. Section 467 of the Indian Penal code define Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 4 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 9 CRA-4480-2025
26. Section 30 of the Indian Penal code define "Valuable security". - The words "valuable security" denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
27. Learned counsel placed reliance in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari (supra), wherein the certificates were forged to get admission in college and the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"..........as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts the Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as 'valuable security' as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Panel Code. We therefore alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 reads with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code...... "
28. The Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari (supra) and came to hold that mark-sheet is not a 'valuable security' within the meaning of Section 467, 468 of the IPC. I am bound by the aforesaid judgment and in view of said judgment constraint to hold that the charge against the applicant under Section 467 of the IPC is not sustainable.
29. Reliance also placed in case of Ghanshyam Patel @ Lallu Vs. State. The facts of the case Ghanshyam Patel was that there is no allegation against the present applicant that he has either tampered the document or fraudulently used this document for obtaining the employment or for any other purpose.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 10 CRA-4480-2025 The allegation is made against the co-accused Raghunath Patel that he has impostered himself as applicant and used educational qualification documents of present applicant. But in present case the allegation against the present appellant that he had knowingly used this document for obtaining the employment or for any other purpose. Hence, above cited judgement not applicable to present case.
30. Section 468 of the Indian Penal code define forgery for purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1 [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sections 468 begin with the expression 'whoever commits forgery, the intention of law makers is clear that these provisions are aimed against the person who has prepared forged document as a genuine document. There is no evidence the accused prepared forged document other hand it was explained by the accused the mark sheet given by the Vishnu Parashar to him. That provision only the creator of the document there for accused cannot punished for the offence 468 of the IPC.
31. At the outset, it is an admitted position that the marksheet submitted by the appellant during the recruitment process has been found to be false and fabricated by the competent authority. Thus, the falsity of the document stands duly proved. Above findings recorded by trial court is not disputed before this court.
32. However, so far as the offence under Section 467 and 468 IPC is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 11 CRA-4480-2025 concerned, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that the appellant himself made or fabricated the forged document. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant was the maker or creator of the marksheet. The prosecution has failed to connect the appellant with the preparation of the forged document. On the contrary, the defence taken by the appellant that the marksheet was provided by Vishnu Parashar remains unrebutted, and the said person could not be examined as he had expired prior to trial. Further, no effective investigation has been conducted to trace the origin of the forged document. In view of the law laid down in the judgment quoted hereinabove, the marksheet cannot be treated as a "valuable security". For similar reasons, the offence under Section 468 IPC is also not made out, as there is no material to establish that the appellant himself forged the document for the purpose of cheating. The essential ingredient of making a false document by appellant is missing. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 467, 468 IPC is not sustainable.
33. Likewise, for attracting Section 471 IPC, it must be proved that the appellant used the forged document as genuine with knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged. In this regard, although the appellant has taken a defence that he had no knowledge about the falsity of the marksheet, an important circumstance on record cannot be ignored. The marksheet submitted by the appellant pertains to the year 2010, whereas it is clearly established by the Board's letter dated 20.11.2019 that no examination was conducted in the year 2010. This is a fundamental discrepancy, which could have been easily verified by the appellant. A prudent person would not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 12 CRA-4480-2025 accept or rely upon a marksheet of a year in which no examination was held at all.
34. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner/accused has got prepared a forged mark-sheet. In fact, the mark-sheet was issued by Open university, Bhopal and the appellant/accused was not aware of the falsity of that mark- sheet. Definition reason to believe is given in the section 26 of the Indian penal code. According to that a person is said to have "reason to believe" a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. It is proved by the prosecution evidence that the photocopy of mark sheet attached with the application form was forged. The plea of the accused that, the Vishnu Parashar use to operate a coaching class and he gave him a photocopy of the mark sheet which was attached by him with application form. He does not know that mark sheet was forged. Once the prosecution proved that mark sheet was forged the burden of prove shift on the accused that he proved that fact was not in knowledge of the accused, it is well settled without entered in the examination no mark sheet have been issued to the student. Appellant has failed to prove that he was entered in the examination of Open University in the year of 2010. It is clearly proved by later of Registrar of Open University that, in 2010 no examination was conducted by him and it is also proved that disputed mark sheet issued in 2009 in the name of Seema not to the name of appellant. Hence it is very well proved that the fact of forged mark sheet was in the knowledge of the appellant. The argument is not accepted the fact of forged mark sheet did not in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 13 CRA-4480-2025 knowledge of the appellant.
35. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code define the using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 3 [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 3 [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 3 [document or electronic record]. It is proved by the evidence the accused had knowledge that the mark sheet is not genuine and he used it for getting appointment. Therefore, offence under 471 of PC is proved.
36. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 467, 468, IPC, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal for the said offences.
37. However, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant submitted the said false marksheet before the authorities during the recruitment process for securing government employment. The document has been found to be false, and by producing the same, the appellant represented it to be genuine and induced the authorities to consider his candidature.
38. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code define the cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 14 CRA-4480-2025 be liable to fine.
39. It is emerging from the definition of cheating the following ingredients of the offence of cheating as follows:
(1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."
40. "Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.", the court added.
41. In Ishwarlal Girdharilal v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1969 SC 40 the Supreme Court held that the word 'Property' as mentioned in Section 420 IPC does not necessarily mean that the thing of which a delivery is dishonestly desired by the person who cheats must have a money value or a market value in the hand of the person cheated. Even if the thing has no money value in the hand of the person cheated but becomes a thing of value Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 15 CRA-4480-2025 in the hand of the person who may get possession of it as a result of the cheating practised by him it would fall within the connotation of the term 'property'. In Abhayanand v/s State of Bihar 1961 (2) Crl. L.J. 822 SC it was observed that an admission card to sit for an examination of a university is property within the meaning of Sec. 420 IPC, though the admission card as such has no pecuniary value it has immense value to the candidate for the examination. Therefore, applying of the above view it is clear the appointment order of government Job is cover in the definition of the property.
42. Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed that dishonest inducement was present. Until appellant would not have possessed 10th class mark sheet, the appellant was not legally entitled to secure the question post. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the appellant knowingly makes a false statement which would induce employer to issued appointment order in favour of appellant. It is noted that before issuing a appointment order it was come to the knowledge that the appellant has submitted forged copy of the marks sheet and employer doesn't issuing appointment later. Therefore, the offence of cheating was not completed, it was only attempted to get job on the basis of forged mark sheet. Hence the accused could not be convicted for offence of cheating, punishment ought to be offence of attempt under 420 read with 511 IPC.
43. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely deception and dishonest inducement, stand proved. The appellant, by submitting a false marksheet in order to secure public Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 16 CRA-4480-2025 employment, attempted to obtain an undue advantage but he could not succeed in getting employment therefore the act of the accused is an attempt and not secured the employment it means the offence was not completed. Therefore, accused be convicted with the add of section 511 of the Indian penal code in place of individual 420 of the IPC.
44. Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if a person is charged with a major offence but evidence shows only an attempt, a conviction for the attempt is permitted, even if the attempt was not separately charged. Section 386(b) of CrPC give Powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal from a conviction, the appellate court can alter the finding while maintaining the sentence or alter the nature/extent of the sentence without enhancing it. Section 511 of IPC provide that if the evidence shows that the accused had the intent and took a direct step towards the main offence but failed to complete it, they can be convicted of an attempt altering the conviction to an "attempt" does not cause prejudice to the accused, the facts brought on record already support the attempt.
45. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing analysis and findings, this Court passes the following order:
(i) The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges. The fine amount, if deposited or recovered for these offences, shall be refunded to him.
(ii) As the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant, by submitting a false marksheet pertaining to a non-existent examination year, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560 17 CRA-4480-2025 deceived the authorities and attempted to secure government employment.
The conviction of the appellant under Section 471, of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed, and the conviction under 420 of the IPC is altered into 420/511 of the IPC.
(iii) So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the appellant remained in custody during trial for a period of 42 days and is in custody from the date of judgment i.e. 22.04.2025 till date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the conviction now survives only under Section 471, 420 / 511 IPC, this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant.
(iv) The fine imposed for the offence under Section 471, 420 IPC is maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court.
(v) The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
46. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with the record for information and compliance.
47. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE Praveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 23-03-2026 19:14:44