Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245 Nominal Index: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212 Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213 National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214 Sachin Shridhar & others v/s...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245
Nominal Index:
Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212
Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213
National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214
Sachin Shridhar & others v/s Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 215
Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 216
Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 217
Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 218
Union of India & Another v/s Kiran Bala and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219
Shri Roshan Lal v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220
Case Name: Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 221
Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. v/s M/s C&C Construction Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 222
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 223
M/s Esteem Industries v/s Chhatisgarh Medical Services Corp. Ltd. and another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 224
Bhagwan Dutt & others v/s State of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 225
Rakesh Kumar v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 226
Secretary (IPH) & ors. v/s Mangak Devi (died and deleted) & ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227
Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228
Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230
Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231
Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways v/s Suman Devi and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 232
Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 233
Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 234
Shiv Singh Sen v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 235
Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 236
Man Bahadur Singh v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 237
Shri Vinod Kalia v/s Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 238
Smt. Jawala Devi & others v/s Smt. Prabha Bhagra & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 240
Lalita Devi v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 241
UCO Bank and another v/s Smt. Manjana Verma Sahni and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 242
Madhu Joshi and another v/s Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 243
Pritam Marshal v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 244
Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245
Case Name: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.
The Court clarified that such termination could only be taken up through a fresh industrial dispute or a direct application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The Appropriate Government in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination… had no authority to make a reference of this issue… The termination… was a fresh cause of action… The appropriate Government suo motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made…”
Case Name: Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has nothing to do with the connection with consolidation or clubbing of suits. It provides for the stay of subsequent suits filed between the same parties on the same cause of action.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has got nothing to do with the issue of clubbing or consolidating the cases, because, the same relates to the principle of res-subjudice, wherein, a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause has to be stayed in the light of the pendency of the earlier suit.”
Case Name: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the withdrawal of a retired employee's higher grade pay and directed the institute to reconsider his claim for financial upgradation. The Court held that the delay was caused by NIT's failure to respond to the employee's representation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that : “It is not disputed that filing of the representation in the year 2018 had never been responded to by the present appellant and only when the rejection order was passed on 28.01.2022, the writ petition came to be filed in July 2022… Having delayed to respond to the representation, now they cannot turn around and take the stance that there was a delay on the part of the employee.”
Case Name: Sachin Shridhar & others v/s Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 215
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a communication issued by the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority , which had withheld payment of to the landowners on the ground that a shortfall in the land area could not be treated as a defect in title under the sale deed.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said: “This Court is of the considered view that defect in title of land cannot be confused with the alleged shortfall in the total land sold by the petitioners to the respondent.”
Case Name: Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 216
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts can permit secondary evidence only upon strict proof that the original document is lost, destroyed, or withheld by the opposing party. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims of loss are insufficient grounds for such permission.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “An inquiry report revealed that no original document was submitted by the plaintiff for registration and what he had submitted was only a photocopy of the said Will and the complaint was also dismissed.”
Case Name: Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 217
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority is legally competent to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority.
It was stated that since proper authorisation took place and no procedural irregularity was found, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were valid.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held that: “Once the record goes on to show that the Executive Chairman had delegated the power at the district level to the DLSA who is the District Judge and the Chairman as per Section 9 of the Act, no fault as such can be found in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.”
Case Name: Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 218
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Municipal Corporation can't raise the issue of trespassing by a former occupant, after it had sought vacation of the premises on the promise of re-allotment.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The respondent–Corporation which got the premises vacated from the petitioner on the promise of the petitioner being put back in possession… cannot now be allowed to raise the issue of the petitioner being in unauthorized possession or having trespassed over the property of the State in these proceedings.”
Deceased Cannot Waive Dependents' Right To Motor Accident Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Union of India & Another v/s Kiran Bala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a deceased person cannot relinquish the statutory right of his dependents to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “A person can relinquish his personal claim, but not the claim of other family members or dependents by swearing an affidavit or giving undertaking.”
The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Union of India against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi which granted compensation to the wife, mother, and children of the deceased Halku Ram, who died in a road accident.
Case Name: Shri Roshan Lal v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a person facing eviction under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (which empowers revenue authorities to remove encroachments from Government land) raises a plea of adverse possession, the Assistant Collector must convert himself into a Civil Court as per Section 163(3) of the Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “It was incumbent upon the Revenue Authority, i.e. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, to have had converted itself into a Civil Court and proceeded with the matter thereafter, as if it was a Civil Court. Failure on the part of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade to do so, rendered the order passed by him null and void.”
Case Name: Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 221
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the owner of a vehicle can be held liable to pay interim compensation on the principle of “no fault” and the driver of the vehicle cannot be made jointly liable with the owner.
Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The driver could not have been made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the owner of the offending vehicle. It is the owner of the vehicle alone who shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the MV Act.”
Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. v/s M/s C&C Construction Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 222
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when there is no appearance of a qualified person to corroborate the claim certificate, the arbitral award suffers patent illegality.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “In the absence of corroboration of the certificate… and any qualified person putting in appearance, the award of ₹3.82 crore along with lease money is arbitrary and constitutes patent illegality.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Zydus Interim Relief In 'Glucon-D v Glucose-D' Trademark Case
Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 223
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently refused to grant interim relief to Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., which had sought to restrain Leeford Healthcare Ltd. from using the marks “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” for its glucose-based products.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order dated November 11, 2025, held that a company cannot claim exclusive rights over descriptive trade terms such as “glucose.”
Case Name: M/s Esteem Industries v/s Chhatisgarh Medical Services Corp. Ltd. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 224
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition is not maintainable in any state where the award debtor's bank has branches. The Court remarked that it will only be maintainable in the State where the award debtor maintains a bank account.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Simply because the award debtor has an account in a bank in Chhattisgarh, which bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the same will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court… the act of the Court of conferring jurisdiction upon itself on the analogy that the bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, shall be slightly far-fetched.”
Case Name: Bhagwan Dutt & others v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 225
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when the gap between the sale transaction date and the land acquisition notification is short, a cumulative rate of increase cannot be granted while assessing the market value of the land.
The Court remarked that since the sale deed and the acquisition notification were issued within a period of nine months, no cumulative rate of increase could be allowed while assessing the market value.
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 226
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession of kerosene without a permit does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (which prescribes penalties for contravention of orders issued under the Act).
The Court remarked that the Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices) Order, 1993, only applies to licensed dealers and distributors operating under the Public Distribution System (PDS), not individuals found in mere possession of kerosene.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The learned Courts below did not consider whether the kerosene order applied to a consumer or not. Thus, the judgments passed by the learned Courts below suffer from jurisdictional error.”
Sale Deeds Executed After Acquisition Notice Cannot Be Used To Inflate Land Value: HP High Court
Case Name: Secretary (IPH) & ors. v/s Mangak Devi (died and deleted) & ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that sale deeds executed after the issuance of the acquisition notification could not be used for determining market value
Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “The documents and exhibited sale deeds… are subsequent to the issuance of notification… the possibility of these sale-deeds being for the purpose of inflating the price cannot be ruled out.”
Case Name: Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has modified the sentence of a truck driver involved in a fatal accident. The Court held that as the truck plunged off the road, and mechanical inspection showed no fault, the accident itself indicated negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “Therefore, it was duly established that the vehicle had left the road and fallen into the gorge. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the vehicles do not usually leave the road and fall into a gorge. Therefore, a principle of res ipsa locutor can be applied to the present case.”
Case Name: Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 50% locomotor-disabled candidate challenging the selection of another candidate for the post of Pharmacist.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner, having 50% locomotor disability, was found unfit for the post of Pharmacist due to improper standing and walking. The work of a Pharmacist involves physical tasks such as giving first aid, performing emergency duties, and sometimes travelling…”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the National Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to discharge the accused in a criminal case involving non-compoundable offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Section 19(5) of the Legal Service Authorities Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law… the Lok Adalat could not have taken cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”
Case Name: Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.
The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to reclaim his property for running his shop.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Petitioner cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood. The fact that the landlord was running a shop in rented premises is more than sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises for running his own shop.”
Case Name: Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways v/s Suman Devi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 232
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the monthly income of a deceased is deemed to be rightly assessed when the salary certificate is proved and it is not challenged during cross-examination.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “The Court found that the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's monthly income as ₹25,000, noting that the salary certificate was proved and not challenged during cross-examination”.
Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 233
In a case under Section 324 IPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the injury sustained by the victim in the case, and the condition of his clothing, clearly disproved the accused's claim that the wound resulted from an accidental fall.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The report of this witness and the statement of the Medical Officer clearly show that the clothes were also cut during the incident. This would rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by way of a fall.”
Case Name: Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 234
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that lapse in establishing the identity of the accused creates a serious discrepancy in criminal cases, especially in the absence of any independent witness to confirm such identification.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:“It was specifically asserted in the rukka that the drivers of the vans ran away from the spot by taking advantage of the darkness. They were identified as Billa and Jitru in the light of the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that Sunil Kumar is known as Jitru, and Ashok Kumar is also known as Billa. No person from the locality was examined to prove this fact.”
Case Name: Shiv Singh Sen v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 235
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that electoral ward boundaries cannot be redrawn merely because a single individual is dissatisfied with population distribution.
The Court further remarked that delimitation is primarily an administrative exercise involving complex geographic, demographic and boundary-based considerations.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel stated that: “…if delimitation is carried out solely on the basis of an individual's grievance, it would lead to unnecessary administrative complications including the requirement for large-scale changes in official documentation of local inhabitants….”
Case Name: Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 236
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case of preventive detention, has observed that the State's reliance on the petitioner's ownership of two vehicles to infer illegal income from drug trafficking was based on biased and incorrect information.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted: “Both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra Finance… therefore, impression given… that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities… seems to be based on a biased information…”
Delay Due To Heavy Rains, Road Blockages Does Not Violate Right To Speedy Trial: HP High Court
Case Name: Man Bahadur Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 237
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the right to speedy trial is not violated when the delay in trial proceedings was due to unavoidable external factors such as road blockages caused by heavy rain.
Case Name: Shri Vinod Kalia v/s Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 238
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot rely on the old age of a person to justify his failure to produce the witness or prove the alleged original rent agreement in a civil suit.
The Court reiterated that when a witness is aged, the law provides a clear mechanism for recording such testimony through a Court-appointed Commissioner.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "The contention that Roshal Lal is an aged person, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner because if that was the case, the petitioner could have had moved an appropriate application to have the statement of Roshan Lal recorded by the appointment of a Commissioner.
Only Surviving Spouse Inherits Tenancy; Other Legal Heirs Have No Right: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Smt. Jawala Devi & others v/s Smt. Prabha Bhagra & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, governing tenancy succession, the right to inherit a deceased tenant's tenancy vests exclusively in the surviving spouse.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “As per Explanation-II, right of every successor referred to in Explanation-I, shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs. Therefore, objection of defendant disputing the locus of plaintiff to file the suit is not sustainable.”
Case Name: Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 240
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a Nepali national who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The Court held that the investigation was not proper as all pouches of the alleged contraband were mixed together before sampling, which made the procedure highly doubtful.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The Investigating Officer had mixed the contents of the backpack and had weighed them together. The samples were taken from the mixed contents of the backpack. The status report does not mention that the sample was representative and homogeneous. The packets were also not sent individually to determine whether they contained opium or not.”
Employee Can't Decide Location Of Anganwari Centre, Must Abide By Directions: HP High Court
Case Name: Lalita Devi v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 241
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the termination of an angwari worker who repeatedly disobeyed the departmental orders to shift the Anganwari Centre from her home to the local Mahila Mandal Bhawan.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that:“It was not for the petitioner to decide where to run the Anganwari Centre. As an employee, all that was required of her was to abide by the directions issued… and not to sit over the same and take her independent decisions contrary to the directions.”
Allegations Of Fraud Can't Be Decided Under SARFAESI Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: UCO Bank and another v/s Smt. Manjana Verma Sahni and another
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 242
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by UCO Bank, which challenged a trial court order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “This Court is of the considered view that the first relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can be granted under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and for the grant of that relief obviously the Fora is the Civil Court.”
Case Name: Madhu Joshi and another v/s Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 243
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, it does not make him liable for contributory negligence over the accident.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.”
Case Name: Pritam Marshal v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 244
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State can't deduct money granted under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund in 2012 from the petitioner's medical reimbursement claims.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:“An amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, released by the worthy Chief Minister out of his own Relief Fund, was not with any conditionthat the same was to be reimbursed or deducted later on upon the happening of any eventuality.”
Case Name: Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah… The police recovered a WhatsApp chat… Sandeep Shah had transferred money… The petitioner's mobile phone was linked to the account… The WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with Sandeep Shah.”