JUDGMENT : DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, J. 1. These criminal appeals have been preferred by eight accused-appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., 1973 who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar vide judgment dated 18/10/2006 in Sessions Case No. 48/2003. 2. After conviction, the accused-appellants were sentenced as follows : For the offence under Section 302/149 of IPC sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 307/149 IPC sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 326/149 IPC (except Arun Kumar @ Hanuman) and under Section 326 IPC to accused Arun Kumar @ Hanuman sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 324/149 IPC sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 323/149 IPC sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 148 IPC sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 26/10/2001 at about 10:15AM one Chaukhraj (PW-11) lodged a written report (Ex. P-22) with the SHO Kotkasim District Alwar indicating that today at about 7:30 in morning he alongwith his family members were doing work at their home, where Abhay Singh, Raghunath, Hanuman, Bhairu, Leelu S/o Abhay Singh, Moorti, Saraswati, Bhagwati armed with lathi, jeli, farsi entered in the house and encircled his brother Jagdish. Hanuman and Abhay Singh blowed farsi and lathi respectively on Jagdish and caused injuries on his head, chin, leg etc. resulted into bleeding. When his nephew Krishna intervened then they also assaulted on him and caused several injuries. Thereafter, they nabbed his nephew Surendra and assaulted on him and caused him several injuries. Hanuman and Abhay Singh blowed farsi and lathi respectively on Jagdish and caused injuries on his head, chin, leg etc. resulted into bleeding. When his nephew Krishna intervened then they also assaulted on him and caused several injuries. Thereafter, they nabbed his nephew Surendra and assaulted on him and caused him several injuries. Thereafter, they encircled his family from all the sides and caused injuries to Basti Ram, Anil, Ramesh, Anokhi Devi, Rajbala and himself and blodied all the family, thereby they became unconscious. After hearing the cry, villagers came and intervened otherwise they would have killed them. Jagdish and Krishna Kumar have been referred by Kotkasim hospital to Alwar hospital due to their bad condition etc. 4. On the above report an FIR (Ex. P-23) was registered by the SHO, being FIR No. 164/2001 for commission of offence under Section 147, 452, 148, 149, 324, and 307 of IPC. 5. During investigation, medical examination of the injured persons and post-mortem of deceased Jagdish were got conducted and reports obtained, the site plan was prepared, witnesses were examined, samples of blood stained soil and simple soil were taken, blood stained cloths were seized, accused persons were arrested, weapons were recovered from the accused persons in consequence of informations given by them and after completion of usual investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 324, 325 452, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. 6. Learned trial Court framed the charges against all the eight accused persons brought before it for trial. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 7. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and got exhibited 56 documents. Learned trial court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-persons stated that evidence adduced against them is incorrect. It is also pleaded that it were the accused persons quarrelled with Moorti Devi and Saraswati @ Suresh of accused party when they were going to their fields and thereafter the complainant party lynched them when they went to reproach. 8. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants, as indicated herein above. 9. It is also pleaded that it were the accused persons quarrelled with Moorti Devi and Saraswati @ Suresh of accused party when they were going to their fields and thereafter the complainant party lynched them when they went to reproach. 8. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants, as indicated herein above. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, they preferred the present appeals before this Court against judgment of the learned trial Court dated 18/10/2006. 10. Alongwith appeals, applications for suspension of sentence were also filed and this Court after considering on the merits of the case, suspended the sentence of all accused-appellants except accused-appellant Abhay Singh vide order dated 16/11/2006 and ordered for the remaining seven accused- appellants to be released on bail. As such all the appellants except appellant Abhay Singh are on bail. 11. During pendency of appeal, appellant-Raghunath Singh and Mst. Moorti Devi died on 25/10/2007 and 09/06/2014 respectively as per death certificates submitted by Public Prosecutor, thus the appeal filed to the extent of accused- appellant-Raghunath Singh and Mst. Moorti Devi has been abetted. 12. In view of the enquiry report received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 25/01/2016 determining the question of juvenility of accused-appellant Sandeep Kumar @ Leelu son of Abhay Singh that he was aged only 17 year 3 month and 6 days on the date of incident i.e. 26/10/2001 and was, therefore a juvenile, his conviction for offence under Section 302/149, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC deserves to be set aside and his matter requires to be remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar for proceeding against him in accordance with law. Therefore, now we consider the appeals filed by remaining five accused-appellants. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law by convicting the appellants on the premise of vicarious liability for the reason that the facts fielded out by the prosecution reveals that there was a free fight between the parties and as a result of that accused persons as well as complainant party received the injuries, so under the circumstances every accused is liable for his individual act only. The prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons especially when some of the accused received the injuries in the nature of lacerated wound and that too on the parietal region. Learned counsel pointed out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and post-mortem report (Ex. P-41) that the deceased Jagdish has received in all four injuries out of which three injuries are abrasions and the injury No. 4 is lacerated wound on the left side of the front parietal region. The prosecution utterly failed to prove as to who was the author of injury No 4 which was proved to be fatal. Learned counsel also argued that the appellants have not supplied any information voluntarily under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and no fact was discovered at the instance of the appellants pursuant to the so-called information as the police forcibly obtained their signatures in order to create the evidence against the appellants. Learned trial Court has stretched the law of vicarious liability beyond the limits with the result it has lost its characteristics of elasticity, so under the circumstances the conviction of appellants is per se bad and cannot be legally sustained. Learned counsel also contended that learned trial Court did not evaluate the evidence in the proper legal perspective and grossly misread the evidence with the result it turned into the manifest misappreciation of evidence which in turn caused great prejudice to the appellants, therefore, the impugned judgment is legally untenable and merits to be set aside in toto. In support of the arguments learned counsel for the appellants relied on :- (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363 Pathubha Govindji Rathod & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat. 14. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has clearly established from the evidence that the accused party was an aggressor, formed an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object and after having made preparation to commit offence, entered in the house of complainant party armed with deadly weapons and caused several grievous and simple injuries to the members of complainant party, resulted into death of Jagdish and injuries to nine other persons of complainant party. 15. 15. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel of the complainant and perused the record. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to observe that counsel for the accused-appellants is not disputing the incident and argued that in the instant incident nine persons of the complainant party and eight persons of accused party got injuries and the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons and the occurrence took place for the reason that complainant party restrained Moorti Devi (deceased-appellant) and Saraswati @ Suresh (accused-appellant) and quarrelled with them when they were going to their fields and also lynched the accused persons when they went to complainant's house to reproach. 17. From conjoint reading of statement of PW-6 Dr. O.P. Meena, PW-1 Dr. Rajkumar Mishra and Ex. P-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 it is proved that:- (i) PW-3 Surendra sustained seven injuries, out of which one was grievous and remaining six were simple in nature, two injuries were caused by sharp weapon and five were caused by blunt weapon; (ii) PW-4 Anil sustained two simple injuries, out of which one was caused by sharp weapon and one was caused by blunt weapon; (iii) PW-19 Krishna Avtar sustained four injuries, out of which one was grievous caused by sharp weapon and three were simple caused by blunt weapon; (iv) PW-24 Anokhi Devi sustained three simple injuries, out of which one was caused by sharp weapon and two were caused by blunt weapon; (v) PW-15 Mst. Ramesh sustained six simple injuries caused by blunt weapon; (vi) PW-12 Mst. Rajbala sustained one simple injury caused by blunt weapon; (vii) PW-11 Chaukhraj sustained one simple injury caused by blunt weapon; (viii) PW-5 Mst. Kamlesh sustained one simple injury caused by blunt weapon; (ix) PW-14 Basti Ram sustained four simple injuries caused by blunt weapon. 18. From the statement of the Investigating Officer PW-25 Amar Singh given in cross-examination and Ex. D-11 to Ex. D-18, it reveals that eight persons of accused party namely Bhagwati Devi (appellant No. 4), Mst. Kamlesh sustained one simple injury caused by blunt weapon; (ix) PW-14 Basti Ram sustained four simple injuries caused by blunt weapon. 18. From the statement of the Investigating Officer PW-25 Amar Singh given in cross-examination and Ex. D-11 to Ex. D-18, it reveals that eight persons of accused party namely Bhagwati Devi (appellant No. 4), Mst. Moorti Devi (deceased- appellant No. 5), Sandeep Kumar (appellant No. 2), Saraswati Devi @ Suresh (appellant No. 7), Amit Kumar @ Bhairu (appellant No. 3), Abhay Singh (appellant No. 6), Raghunath Singh (deceased-appellant No. 1) and Arun Kumar also sustained injuries. 19. From perusal of aforesaid injury reports it appears that injured persons of complainant party sustained twenty nine injuries in total, out of which eleven injuries were on vital parts, whereas persons of accused party also sustained twenty nine injuries in total, out of which twelve injuries were on vital parts. It also appears that cross FIR No. 165/2001 was also lodged by deceased-appellant Raghunath Singh against the complainant party on the same day i.e. 26/10/2001 in which after investigation, police filed negative final report but the concerned criminal Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 149 IPC. 20. We deem it necessary to observe that there are cross versions of the incident and cross FIRs were lodged with the police. It is also evident that nine persons of complainant party excluding the deceased Jagdish and eight persons of accused party sustained injuries and that too on the vital organs also. Considering the number of persons involved in the incident it can be safely said that this is a case of sudden free fight between two groups of people. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Pathubha Govindji Rathod & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (supra) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 363 held that in the cases of free fights the accused are to be fastened with individual liability taking into consideration the specific role assigned to each one of them. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in aforesaid case applies in the present case also, therefore, now we have to examine the individual liability of accused- appellants. 21. PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh conducted autopsy of deceased Jagdish on police request and prepared post-mortem report Ex. P-41. According to statement of this witness and Ex. 21. PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh conducted autopsy of deceased Jagdish on police request and prepared post-mortem report Ex. P-41. According to statement of this witness and Ex. P-41, the injuries found on the body of deceased Jagdish are as under. 1. Four abrasions reddish in colour with swelling on left hand. 2. Abrasion 6x4 cm on right forearm . 3. Abrasion reddish in colour 3x2 cm on right shoulder. 4. Lacerated wound 10x4 cm on left side front parietal region longitudinally placed on the middle of skull. 22. According to this witness, he found hematoma in scalp and fracture of left parietal bone and all the injuries were ante- mortem. In his opinion, cause of death was head injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. In cross- examination the witness stated that no injury was caused by sharp edged weapon and only one injury was there on head. 23. PW-3 Surendra Kumar, in his statement recorded in Court has stated that Raghunath Singh, Abhay Singh, Hanuman, Bhairu, Leelu, Moorti, Bhagwati and Saraswati armed with lathi, jeli, and farsi entered in their house with common object. Hanuman armed with farsi, Raghunath armed with jeli and all others armed with lathis started beating his father. Hanuman blowed farsi, Raghunath blowed jeli, Abhay Singh and all others blowed lathi on the head of Jagdish. 24. PW-4 Anil who is nephew of deceased Jagdish has stated that Hanuman blowed farsi and Abhay Singh blowed lathi on the head of Jagdish. 25. PW-5 Mst. Kamlesh stated that Raghunath was armed with jeli, Hanuman was armed with farsi and others were armed with lathis. 26. PW-11 Chaukhraj in his statement recorded in Court has stated that Hanuman armed with farsi, Raghunath armed with jeli, Abhay Singh and others armed with lathis came and assaulted on Jagdish. According to this witness Hanuman blowed farsi, Abhay Singh blowed lathi, Raghunath blowed jeli and Leelu blowed lathi on the head of Jagdish. Almost similar statements have been given by PW-12 Mst. Rajbala, PW-14 Basti Ram, PW-15 Mst. Ramesh Devi, PW-19 Krishna Avtar, PW- 20 Sadik @ Satish and PW-24 Smt. Anokhi Devi. According to prosecution witnesses the accused persons caused several injuries on the head of Jagdish by sharp as well as blunt weapons, but from the statement of PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh and post-mortem report Ex. Rajbala, PW-14 Basti Ram, PW-15 Mst. Ramesh Devi, PW-19 Krishna Avtar, PW- 20 Sadik @ Satish and PW-24 Smt. Anokhi Devi. According to prosecution witnesses the accused persons caused several injuries on the head of Jagdish by sharp as well as blunt weapons, but from the statement of PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh and post-mortem report Ex. P-41 it is evident that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased Jagdish that too was caused by blunt weapon and no injury caused by sharp weapon was found on his body. According to the statements of all the witnesses, appellant Abhay Singh blowed lathi on the head of Jagdish. According to PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh, only one injury was found on the head of deceased Jagdish and that was the cause of death of Jagdish, therefore, we hold that appellant Abhay Singh alone is the author of fatal injury caused to Jagdish. 27. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated that complainant party quarrelled with Moorti Devi and Saraswati @ Suresh of accused party when they were going to their fields. Thereafer , the complainant party lynched the accused persons when they went to reproach. In cross- examination PW-3 Surendra Kumar, PW-11 Chaukhraj, PW-20 Sadik @ Satish were also given suggestion to this effect, though they denied. Investigation officer PW-25 Amar Singh also stated in his cross-examination that the fact of quarrel between Moorti Devi, Saraswati and complainant party has come during investigation. Therefore, it can be said that genesis of the incident as shown by the accused party is not afterwards and they took this defence since beginning. 28. There is yet another important circumstance which we observe that all the eye-witnesses have consistently deposed that Hanuman, Raghunath and Abhay Singh blowed weapons which they were carrying with them, on the head of Jagdish. Whereas, from medical evidence of PW-23 Dr. Amar Singh, it is evident that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased Jagdish and that too was caused by blunt weapon and no injury caused by sharp weapon was found on his body. 29. From the evidence put forth by both the parties, it is established that there is rivalry between both the parties for last 25 years. 29. From the evidence put forth by both the parties, it is established that there is rivalry between both the parties for last 25 years. It is also an admitted fact that house of the complainant party is on the way of accused party when they go to their fields from their house. As discussed above, the case of the accused party is that the complainant party quarrelled with Mst. Moorti Devi and Saraswati @ Suresh of accused party when they were going to their fields, thereafter accused party went to reproach, then the incident of sudden free fight took place in the heat of passion at about 7:30 AM. The defence put forth by appellants appears to be probable. If the defence version is accepted it can safely be inferred that the accused party was provoked when complainant party quarrelled with Mst. Moorti Devi & Saraswati @ Suresh when they were going to their fields and the incident took place in spur of moment in which nine persons of complainant party excluding deceased Jagdish and eight persons of accused party got injuries. 30. In these circumstances, the death of Jagdish amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As discussed above, appellant Abhay Singh is author of the fatal injury caused to Jagdish and this is a case of sudden free fight between both the parties. From the evidence brought on record, it is proved that Abhay Singh has caused the injury on the skull of the deceased Jagdish with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death therefore, he alone is liable to be convicted under first part of Section 304 of IPC. 31. According to the statement of PW-3 Surendra and other eye-witnesses, appellant Arun @ Hanuman was armed with farsi who blowed farsi on the head of Surendra. Surendra stopped second blow of Arun @ Hanuman, thereby he sustained injury on middle finger of left hand. According to medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. O.P. Meena and injury report Ex. P-6 prepared by him and x-ray report Ex. P-3, injury No. 3 found on the body of Surendra was incision 4x1x1 cm on left middle finger which was caused by sharp weapon and was grievous in nature. According to medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. O.P. Meena and injury report Ex. P-6 prepared by him and x-ray report Ex. P-3, injury No. 3 found on the body of Surendra was incision 4x1x1 cm on left middle finger which was caused by sharp weapon and was grievous in nature. For this injury appellant Arun @ Hanuman has been convicted by learned trial Court for offence under Section 326 IPC and other appellants under Section 326/149 IPC. 32. According to the statement of PW-19 Krishna Avtar and other eye-witnesses, appellant Arun @ Hanuman caused injury on the forehead of PW-19 Krishna Avtar by farsi. According to the medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. O.P. Meena, the injury No. 1 found on the body of Krishna Avtar was incision 5x2 bone deep on forehead which was caused by sharp weapon and after x-ray report, the same was found grievous in nature. For this injury the appellants have been convicted by learned trial Court for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC. There is no evidence on record which proves that the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 33. As both the aforesaid grievous injuries have been caused by appellant Arun @ Hanuman voluntarily on sudden provocation, therefore, he alone can be held responsible for the said injuries and not the other appellants, that too under Section 335 of IPC and not under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. 34. As discussed above, all the appellants were armed with weapons at the time of incident and they voluntarily caused several injuries to PW-3 Surendra, Kumar PW-4 Anil, PW-5 Mst. Kamlesh, PW-11 Chaukhraj, PW-12 Mst. Rajbala PW-14 Basti Ram PW-15 Mst. Ramesh, PW-19 Krishna Avtar and PW-24 Mst. Anokhi Devi which were found simple in nature expect the aforesaid grievous injuries attributed to appellant Abhay Singh and Arun @ Hanuman. Therefore, all the accused- appellants are also liable to be convicted under Section 324 and 323 of IPC. 35. In view of above discussion, the appeals are allowed in part and impugned judgment dated 18/10/2006 in Sessions Case No. 48/2003 stands modified in the following manner and directions : A. Appeal no. 1078/2006: (i) the appeal filed to the extent of accused-appellants Raghunath Singh and Mst. 35. In view of above discussion, the appeals are allowed in part and impugned judgment dated 18/10/2006 in Sessions Case No. 48/2003 stands modified in the following manner and directions : A. Appeal no. 1078/2006: (i) the appeal filed to the extent of accused-appellants Raghunath Singh and Mst. Moorti Devi abates since as per death certificates submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, they have died on 25/10/2007 and 9/6/2014 respectively; (ii) in view of the order received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 25/01/2016 determining the question of juvenility of accused-appellant Sandeep that he was aged only 17 years, 3 months and 6 days on the date of incident i.e. 26/10/2001 and was, therefore, a juvenile, his conviction for offence under Section 302/149, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149,323/149 and 148 IPC is set aside and his matter is remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar for proceeding against him in accordance with law. He shall appear before the said Board on 22/08/2016 and furnish fresh bail bond and sureties to their satisfaction; (iii) the conviction of accused-appellant Abhay Singh for offence under Section 302 read with 149 is set aside. He is instead convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is required to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. His conviction for offence under Sections 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 and 148 IPC is also set aside. He is, however, convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. He is also convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. If he completes the sentence, deposits the amount of fine and is not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, he may be released forthwith. (iv) the conviction of accused-appellants Amit Kumar @ Bhairu, Mst. Bhagoti Devi and Mst. Saraswati @ Suresh for offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC is set aside. If he completes the sentence, deposits the amount of fine and is not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, he may be released forthwith. (iv) the conviction of accused-appellants Amit Kumar @ Bhairu, Mst. Bhagoti Devi and Mst. Saraswati @ Suresh for offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC is set aside. However, each of them is convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by them with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, each of them shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. Each of them is also convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by them with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, each of them shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. They are on bail, therefore, if each of them deposits the amount of fine, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged; B. Appeal No. 1132/2006: 36. The conviction of accused-appellant Arun Kumar @ Hanuman for offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149, 326, and 148 IPC is set aside. He is instead convicted for offence under Section 335 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In view of Section 357 Cr.P.C., however, the accused-appellant Arun Kumar @ Hanuman is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the trial Court for being paid as compensation to injured Krishna Avtar and Surendra in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. He is also convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. He is also convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. He is on bail, therefore, if he deposits the amount of fine, he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. 37. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants namely; Abhay Singh, Amit Kumar @ Bhairu, Mst. Bhagoti Devi, Mst. He is on bail, therefore, if he deposits the amount of fine, he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. 37. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants namely; Abhay Singh, Amit Kumar @ Bhairu, Mst. Bhagoti Devi, Mst. Saraswati @ Suresh and Arun Kumar @ Hanuman are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.