A preservation representation is not a statutory instrument. It compels nothing, and it is not an RTI application, so no clock starts when you send one. Its value is narrower and worth stating plainly: once an office has been told in writing that identified records are the subject of an inquiry, the destruction of those records after that date is itself a documentable fact, with a date on it. That is the whole mechanism.

The reason to send one now is that the police action of this period is before the Supreme Court, which constituted a five-member High Powered Enquiry Committee by an order reported 18 August 2026. Records of this kind are liable to be material to that inquiry, and a record lost to a routine retention cycle is not recoverable.

• Check who currently holds the office. This archive does not hold the officeholders' names and does not guess them. A letter to a misidentified officer can be ignored for a good reason.
• Read it. The Munger letter deliberately does not assert that police force was used at Munger, because the archive does not establish it (INC-BIH-003, UNVERIFIED). Do not firm that up.
• Keep the proof. Ask for a delivery receipt and keep the sent item. It is weaker than a speed post receipt, which is why post is still better wherever an address is known. One of these four has an address.
• Nothing you type here leaves this browser. Your name and address are kept in local storage so you do not retype them four times, and they go into your own outgoing mail. There is no account here and no server of ours in the path.

The official Bihar Police website, police.bihar.gov.in, retrieved 18 September 2026. The district officer directory is not a page you can link to: it ships inside the site's own application bundle, whose filename is content-hashed and changes on every rebuild, so the citation is the site and the date rather than a URL.

Munger is independently cross-confirmed. munger.nic.in gives the same email, the same office number and the same mobile, and adds a postal address. Two official sources agreeing on one district is the reason to trust the directory for the other three; it is not proof of them. At the time of retrieval patna.nic.in, katihar.nic.in and siwan.nic.in were all returning HTTP 503, so none of those three could be cross-checked.

Every one of these addresses is @nic.in or @gov.in, so they are government mail systems, and those are the systems most likely to check SPF. That would have been a problem before: the domain's own SPF record was wrong. Checked 18 September 2026 it reads v=spf1 include:secureserver.net include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all, which authorises the servers the domain actually sends from.

You are sending from your own address, not ours, so that record governs our mail rather than yours. If your mail is rejected, send from a different provider or post it.