CRLMB/3322/2026 of RAHUL VIJAY S/O SH. UDAY RAJ VIJAY Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION on 20 August 2026

Order

20/08/2026 izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk EO-III Delhi] ftyk Delhi esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k RC2212025E0010] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 13¼2½ lifBr /kkjk ¼13½¼1½¼a½ ih-lh- ,DV 1988 ¼la'kksf/kr 2018½ esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 10-12-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS] mlls vUos"k.k iw.kZ gks pqdk gS] mlds fo:) vkjksi i= izLrqr gks pqdk gS] mlls dksbZ cjkenxh fd;k tkuk 'ks"k ugha gSA izdj.k bysDVªkfud ,oa nLrkosth

(2 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gSA xokgksa dks Mjk;s&/kedk;s tkus dk dksbZ lansg ugha gSA tekur vf/kdkj gS] tsy viokn gS] fcuk fdlh U;k;laxr dkj.k ds izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks vfHkj{kk esa j[kuk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 }kjk çnÙk ekSfyd vfèkdkjksa dk mYya?ku gSA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa fu;e vuqlkj 50]000@& :i;s rd ds Hkqxrkuksa dh Lohd`fr vflLVsaV eSustj QkbZusal nsus esa l{ke Fkk] 50]000@& :i;s ls 50]00]000@& :i;s rd ds Hkqxrku gsrq nks QkbZusal vkWfQllZ dk la;qDr vkFkksjkbZts'ku vko';d Fkk] tcfd 50]00]000@& :i;s ls 15]00]00]000@& :i;s rd ds Hkqxrku gsrq nks QkbZusal vkWfQllZ dk la;qDr vkFkksjkbZts'ku] tgka f}rh; vkFkksjkbZtj Mhth,e ;k mlls Åij dh jSad dk vf/kdkjh gksuk vfuok;Z FkkA bl izdj.k esa 50]00]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd ds Hkqxrku ds rF; vk;s gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd ,;jiksVZ vFkksfjVh vkWQ bafM;k ds vU; inkf/kdkjh Hkh blesa lfEefyr Fks] ftlls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks ,dek= nks"kh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS ,oa tc rd fopkj.k lekIr gksdj izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) ugha eku fy;k tkrk gS rc rd og funksZ"k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) nsgjknwu esa vU; izdj.k yfEcr gksus ek= ds vk/kkj ij mls bl izdj.k esa vfHkj{kk esa ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA U;k;ky; tks Hkh 'krsZa vf/kjksfir djsxk mUgsa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ekuus vkSj ikyuk djus ds fy, rS;kj gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj mls tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA çkFkÊ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p; çLrqr fd;s gS%&

1. Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation; (2012) 1 SCC 40

2. P. Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement; Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019; Order dated: 04.12.2019

3. Arvind Kejriwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation; 2024 SCC Online SC 2550

(3 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026]

4. Bharat Singh Vs Union of India; SLP (Crl.) No. 4543/2026; Order Dated: 15.05.2026 fo}ku fof'k"V yksd vfHk;kstd ,oa Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj esa lhfu;j eSustj] QkbZusal ds in ij jgrs gq, 18]12]05]832@& :i;s dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k gS] mlus iqjkuh frfFk;ksa ds QthZ isesaV ckmpj rS;kj fd;s] muds fizUV vkmV fudkydj QthZ izfof"V;ka dh gS] QthZ vkbZ-Mh- cukdj [kkrksa esa Hkqxrku fd;k gSA mlds fo:) blh izdkj ds xcu dk vkjksi fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k] lhchvkbZ dSlst] nsgjknwu esa Hkh yfEcr gS] ftlesa Hkh 236 djksM :i;s ds nqfoZfu;ksx ds rF; vk;s gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k xEHkhj fdLe ds gSa] mlds fo:) vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ek= ls og vius vkijkf/kd nkf;Ro ls cp ugha ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA eSaus mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk tekur izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ,sls tekur izkFkZuk i=ksa dks fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs le; U;k;ky; dks fofHkUu rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[kuk gksrk gSA bu rF;ksa ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; "Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466" ds iSjk la[;k 24 dks Hkh ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the

(4 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." mijksDr fofu'p;ksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj tekur izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k gsrq U;k;ky; dks fdu&fdu rF;ksa ij fopkj djuk gksrk gS] bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu'p; P. Chidambaram v. CBI [2020] 13 SCC 337 ds iSjk la[;k 21 dks ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations." bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius fofu'p; State Through C.B.I v. Amaramani Tripathi; 2005 AIR 3490 ds iSjk la[;k 14 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& "14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

(5 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026]

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528: "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Puran vs. Ram Bilas 2001 (6) SCC 338." mDr fofu'p;ksa esa ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd tekur izkFkZuk i= dks fuLrkfjr djrs le; lk{; o nLrkostksa ds xq.kkoxq.k ij foLr`r foospu dh vko';drk ugha jgrh gSA U;k;ky; dks izFke n`"V;k ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd U;kf;d :i ls vfHk;qDr tekur izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ;k ughaA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj esa lhfu;j eSustj] QkbZusal ds in ij jgrs gq,

(6 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] 18]12]05]832@& :i;s dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;s tkus dk vkjksi gS ,oa ,d vU; vkjksi 236 djksM :i;s ds nqfoZfu;ksx dk Hkh gS] tks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us nsgjknwu esa fd;k gS] tks nsgjknwu esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gSA Hkz"Vkpkj dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fofHkUu fofu'p;ksa esa vR;ar xEHkhj ekuk gSA Hkkjrh; lafo/kku esa U;k;] lekurk vkSj ca/kqrk ds ewY;ksa dks izLrkouk esa j[kk x;k gS vkSj ;g gekjs lafo/kku o iztkra= dk eq[; vk/kkj LrEHk gS rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj bu vk/kkj LrEHkksa dks [kRe dj jgk gSA bl laca/k esa Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra; [2013] 4 SCC 642 ds lkFk Manoj Narula v. Union of India; [2014] 9 SCC 1 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s er dks ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "Criminality and corruption go hand in hand. From the date the Constitution was adopted i.e. 26-1-1950, a Red Letter Day in the history of India, the nation stood as a silent witness to corruption at high places. Corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187] the Court has observed: (SCC pp. 654-55, para 26) “26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality.” blh izdkj Jatin Salwan vs CBI; 2026:PHHC:014657 ds iSjk la[;k 8 dks Hkh ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%&

8. Indubitably, the allegations raised in the FIR in question are serious in nature which are not confined only to monetary gain alone. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate demanded large amount of money by claiming that he could influence a

(7 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] judicial officer and secure a favourable order in a divorce case. Such allegations, if found true, do not affect only the complainant but have a wider impact on public trust in the justice delivery system. The material which has been placed on record before this Court shows that the complaint was first verified by the CBI before the FIR in question was registered. The recorded conversations, the verification report, and the trap proceedings prima facie indicate a demand for illegal gratification and the collection of part of the bribe amount through a co-accused. At this stage, this material cannot be legally ignored or brushed aside. The argument that the petitioner is not a public servant does not help him at this stage as Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act squarely covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. The age and professional standing of the petitioner, though relevant, cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations. Upon directions issued by this Court, the medical condition of the petitioner was got assessed by the CBI and nothing has come forth which may entitle the petitioner to be afforded regular bail on medical ground(s). Furthermore, whether the judicial officer named in the complaint was actually competent to pass the order is matter of defence and will be examined during the course of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that offences involving corruption, particularly those undermining institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach while considering the grant of bail. In cases involving corruption and misuse of influence in the judicial process, such factors by themselves are not sufficient to grant bail especially when the allegations are supported by prima facie material. The petitioner is an Advocate with long professional experience. At this stage, it cannot be said that there does not exist a reasonable apprehension/concern that his release may affect the course of investigation or trial including the possibility of influencing the witness(s). The rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, after consideration of the material on record, further persuades this Court not to take a contrary view in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances.

8.1. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior Advocate on the fact of investigation having been culminated in the filing of Challan/Final Report and the petitioner having suffered incarceration for

(8 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] more than 5 months for an offence punishable (maximum) up to 7 years of imprisonment. Indubitably, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the conclusion of the investigation and the subsequent presentation of Challan/Final Report, as well as, the petitioner having undergone a custody of around 5½ months for an offence punishable with up to 7 years of Imprisonment (maximum), constitute factors relevant for consideration of bail, however, they cannot be viewed in vacuum and nor do they operate as an absolute passport for enlargement on bail. Indubitably, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the conclusion of the investigation and the subsequent presentation of Challan/Final Report, as well as, the petitioner having undergone a custody of around 5½ months for an offence punishable with up to 7 years of Imprisonment (maximum), constitute factors relevant for consideration of bail, however, they cannot be viewed in vacuum and nor do they operate as an absolute passport for enlargement on bail. These mitigating factors do not preclude this Court from scrutinizing the gravitas of the allegations and their broader socio-legal implications. When an advocate, who is considered as an officer of the Court, solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, the act is not merely a private fraud but sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution. It is the duty of this Court to treat such transgressions as an existential threat to the sanctity of the institution. The totality of the allegations; the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been perpetrated; and the position of the accused especially vis-a-vis the complainant; etc., are to be borne in mind while adjudicating the instant plea for enlargement of bail, by this Court. blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; "Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439" ds iSjk la[;k 34] 35 dks ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country

(9 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." tekur Lohdkj djuk ;k vLohdkj djuk U;k;ky; ds foosd ij fuHkZj djrk gS vkSj ,slk foosd tekur Lohdkj djus ;k vLohdkj djus ds fu/kkZfjr fl)karksa ds vk/kkj ij U;kf;d gksuk pkfg,A tekur izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj djrs le; U;k;ky; dks bu rF;ksa dks ns[kuk gksrk gS fd izFke n`"V;k vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k fd;s tkus ds rF; gSa ;k ugh vkSj vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk vkSj izd`fr fdl izdkj dh gS] lkFk gh vU; rF;ksa ds vfrfjDr izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ij U;k;ky; dks fopkj djuk gksrk gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus fofHkUu fnukadksa ij fofHkUu jkf'k vius ,Dlhl cSad [kkrs ,oa ,l-ch-vkbZ- cSad [kkrs esa Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds [kkrs ls vius [kkrs esa gLrkarfjr dh gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk izFke ckj jkf'k 74]55]600@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 1]02]83]000@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 80]00]000@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 75]04]510@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 1]06]11]000@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 1]07]00]000@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 54]71]722@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 1]25]60]000@& :i;s] rRi'pkr~ 1]28]00]000@& :i;s vkSj bl izdkj vU; jkf'k Hkh fofHkUu rkjh[kksas ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk vius ,Dlhl cSad vkSj ,l-ch-vkbZ- cSad [kkrksa esa gLrkarfjr dh xbZA izdj.k esa ;g izFken`"V;k Li"V gS fd 18]12]05]832@& :i;s dh jkf'k izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds [kkrs esa tek gqbZ gSA ;fn Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds vU; inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh xyrh ls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds [kkrs esa mDr jkf'k tek gqbZ

(10 of 10) [CRLMB-3322/2026] gksrh rks bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj dks f'kdk;r djrk] ysfdu bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g izFken`"V;k ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us tkucw>dj Lo;a dks lnks"k ykHk ,oa Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj dks lnks"k gkfu igqapkus ds fy, 18]12]05]832@& :i;s dk xcu fd;kA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k bl rF; ls Hkh xEHkhj gks tkrk gS fd mlds fo:) 236 djksM :i;s dk izdj.k fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k] lhchvkbZ dSlst] nsgjknwu esa Hkh yfEcr gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) bl izdj.k ds vfrfjDr vU; dsl Hkh yfEcr gS] bl rF; dks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us Nqik;k vkSj tekur dh lqfo/kk dk ykHk izkIr djus dk iz;kl fd;k] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr LoPN gkFkksa ls U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha vk;k gS] bl rF; dh iqf"V fo}ku fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k] lhchvkbZ] la[;k&1] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke }kjk tekur izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-02-2026 ds voyksdu ls Hkh gksrh gSA vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.k&nks"kksa ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk bl izØe ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr jkgqy fot; iq= Jh mn; jkt fot; dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA pwafd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 10-12-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] mlds fo:) vkjksi i= izLrqr gks pqdk gS] vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds lk{khx.k dh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkfr dh lqfuf'prrk djus gsrq izHkkoh vknsf'kdk fu"ikfnr dj vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k ds c;ku ys[kc) dj izdj.k ds rhoz xfr ls fuLrkj.k dk iz;kl djsaA (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J 7/AKSHAY KUMAR PAREEK/P.A.