JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. By this common judgment, we shall decide D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 22/2011 preferred by Pappu @ Ramlal and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.178/2011 instituted by Mukesh and Vijay. Three appellants before us, have directed these appeals to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 1.11.2010 along with order of sentence passed on even date, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tonk. The trial court vide the impugned judgment, convicted all the three appellants for the offences under Section 302, 302/34, 324 and 324/34 IPC, however, the appellants were acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 307 and 307/34 IPC. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 302 and 302/34 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year R.I. U/s. 324 and 324/34 IPC- to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. The trial court ordered that the sentences awarded upon the appellants on above counts shall run concurrently. 2. The criminal proceedings were set into motion by Kajod (P.W.1). On 13.11.2008 at 8:45 PM, while admitted at Community Health Center, Kajod (P.W.1) got recorded his statement Exhibit-P/1, before Tarun Kant Somani (P.W.15), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Newai. 3. In statement, Exhibit-P/1, Kajod (P.W.1) stated that on 13.11.2008 at around 8:00 PM, he reached Bus Stand from his house, where many people were standing. He saw that Vijay S/o Shri Rampal and Mukesh S/o Shri Rampal and Pappu @ Ramlal Gurjar S/o Shri Bhaguta Gurjar were giving beating to Mukesh Nayak. When he intervened, they also started beating him. Thereafter, in quick succession, out of these three persons, Vijay Balai and Papu Gurjar gave knife blows to him and to Mukesh Nayak, due to which the blood started oozing out from the injuries on his person and Mukesh Nayak. People gathered at the spot, made an attempt to intervene. Thereafter, both of them were taken to Jhilai Hospital by Manoj Kumar and Suraj Mal. After giving first aid, they were referred to Newai Hospital. People gathered at the spot, made an attempt to intervene. Thereafter, both of them were taken to Jhilai Hospital by Manoj Kumar and Suraj Mal. After giving first aid, they were referred to Newai Hospital. All the above named three persons with common intention to kill, caused the blows with the knife to him and Mukesh Nayak. In the incident, Mukesh Nayak S/o Badri had suffered many serious injuries. 4. In pursuance of the Parchabayan (Exibit-P/1), formal FIR (Exhibit-P/8) was registered at Police Station New for offences under Sections 323, 307 IPC. Due to the death of Mukesh Nayak, subsequently offence under Section 302 IPC was added. 5. The special report on 14.11.2008 at 12:30 PM, reached Illaqa Magistrate. 6. The police conducted thorough investigation and nominated the present appellants as accused and submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against them, for various offences including offence of murder. The case was committed by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate to the court of Sessions and same was entrusted for trial to the court of Additional Session Judge, Fast Track, Tonk. The said court formulated charges for the offences under Sections 324, 307 and 302 IPC, in alternative appellants were charged for offences under Sections 324/34, 302/34, 353 and 302 IPC. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. From perusal of Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1), lodged by Kajod (P.W.1), it is apparent that specific knife blows have been attributed to Vijay Balai and Pappu. Though, initially this witness in the Parchabayan (Exhibit- P/1) has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Vijay Balai, Pappu @ Ramlal and Mukesh Balai were giving beating to Mukesh Nayak. It has also been further stated in Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) that first informant Kajod (P.W.1), and deceased Mukesh Nayak were taken to hospital by Manoj Kumar (P.W.5) and Suraj Mal (P.W.6). 8. It has also been further stated in Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) that first informant Kajod (P.W.1), and deceased Mukesh Nayak were taken to hospital by Manoj Kumar (P.W.5) and Suraj Mal (P.W.6). 8. To emphasize, we reproduce following portion from Exhibit-P/1, in vernacular, as under:- Þogka eqds’k ds lkFk fot; S/o jkeiky cykbZ, vkSj eqds’k S/o Jh jkeiky cykbZ rFkk iIiw S/o Jh Hkkxwok xqtZj us fey dj eqds’k uk;d ds lkFk ekjihV dj jgs FksA eSaus tkdj eqds’k dk chp cpko fd;k rks esjs lkFk Hkh ekjihV pkyw dj nh] FkksM+h nsj esa bl rhuksa esa ls fot; us eqds’k uk;d vkSj esjs ij pkdw o iIiw xqtZj us nksuksa us pkdw ls ekj fn;k ftlls nksuksa ds [kwu cgusa yxk (emphasis supplied) rks vkl iM+ksl [kM+s o buds yksxks us chp cpko djok;k vkSj gesa nksuksa dks eukst vkSj lwjt f>ykbZ vLirky esa ysdj x;sAÞ 9. Kajod appeared in the court as P.W.1. He testified before the trial court to the effect that on 13.11.2008, at 7:30 PM, he was going from his house towards bus stand and he was accompanied by Mukesh Nayak. When they reached opposite shop of Raj Music, they found that near bus stand, Pappu @ Ramlal, Vijay Balai and Mukesh Balai, all three were standing. They gave abuses to Mukesh Nayak. Mukesh Nayak questioned them as to why they are giving abuses. Mukesh Balai caught hold of Mukesh Nayak and Pappu @ Ramlal and Vijay Balai caused injuries with knife to Mukesh Nayak. He intervened to separate them. They gave him abuses also and also gave him beating. This witness further stated that he was caused knife blows by Mukesh Balai and Vijay Balai. This witness suffered injuries below his armpit, chest, abdomen, waist and left hand. This witness further stated that injuries were caused by the accused to Mukesh Nayak in the abdomen, feet, one hand and one or two other parts of the body. He had suffered severe injuries on the feet and armpit. This witness further stated that Manoj, Dhanveer, Ramesh, Suraj and Suresh intervened and got them separated. 10. On comparison of the statement Exhibit-D/1 made by Kajod (P.W.1) to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., his Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) and statement made in the court, it is revealed that Kajod (P.W.1) before the court has improved his version. This witness further stated that Manoj, Dhanveer, Ramesh, Suraj and Suresh intervened and got them separated. 10. On comparison of the statement Exhibit-D/1 made by Kajod (P.W.1) to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., his Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) and statement made in the court, it is revealed that Kajod (P.W.1) before the court has improved his version. To stress this fact, we reproduce the following portion in vernacular from his testimony in the court, as under:- Þeqds’k uk;d dks eqds’k cykbZ us idM+ fy;k vkSj iIiw o fot; us eqds’k uk;d dks pkdwvksa ls ekjus yx x;s] FkksM+h nsj esa eSa NqM+kus vk;k rks eq>s igys rks xkfy;ka fudkyh rhuksa us xkfy;ka fudkyh fQj esjs lkFk Hkh ekjihV dh tks pkew ls ekjihV dh eqds’k cykbZ vkSj fot; cykbZ us esjs dks pkdw ls ekjkA esjs cxy esa] Nkrh ij isV ij] dej ij vkSj ck;ka gkFk ij pkdw dh yxhA eqds’k uk;d ds isV esa] iSj ij] ,d gkFk ij ,d nks txg yxh FkhA isV esa o iSjksa ij] lkbZM+ esa cxy esa T;knk yxh Fkh tks pkdw dh yxh FkhAÞ 11. Attention of the witness was drawn to the fact that in statement Exhibit-D/1, made before police, he had not specifically stated that Mukesh Balai and Vijay Balai have caused him injuries. In the reply to the attention drawn to above fact by the counsel for the defence, Kajod (P.W.1) in the court stated as under:- Þ;g ckr eSus ipkZ cpku esa fy[kkbZ fd eqds’k cykbZ o fot; us esjs dks pkdwvksa ls ekjk Fkk ;g ckr ipkZ c;ku es fy[kh gqbZ ugh gks rks eSa ugha dg ldrkAÞ 12. This witness admitted in the court that he cannot explain as to why the fact that Mukesh Balai had caused injury with knife is not recorded in his statement (Exhibit-D/1), recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We reproduce the following portion from the testimony of Kajod (P.W.1), as under:- Þ;g lgh gS fd eqds’k uk;d FkksM+h nwj tkdj fxj x;k ;g ckr eSaus ipkZ cpku esa fy[kkbZ Fkh ijUrq blesa fy[kh gqbZ ugha gS eq>s irk ugha gSA eqds’k cykbZ us eq>s pkdw ls ekjk ;g ckr eSus iqfyl dks cpkuksa esa crk nh Fkh iqfyl c;ku izn’kZ Mh&1 esa fy[kh gqbZ ugha gS mldk dkj.k eSa ugh crk ldrkAÞ 13. This witness in the court admitted that the deceased had previous enmity with brother of Pappu @ Ramlal. This witness deposed as under :- Þbuds vkil esa iqjkuh jaft’k Fkh tks e`rd dh Fkh D;ksafd iIiw xqtZj ds HkkbZ ls e`rd eqds’k uk;d dk >xM+kk gks x;k Fkk vkSj ogha jaft’k Fkh blls vf/kd esjs dks irk ugha gSAÞ 14. This witness in the court denied the fact that Vijay Balai had not caused him or the deceased Mukesh Nayak injuries. This witness stated to be correct that Mukesh Balai had caught hold of Mukesh Nayak. This witness further stated that Mukesh Balai had taken Mukesh Nayak into his grip. This witness further stated that Mukesh Balai had caught hold of hands of Mukesh Nayak, deceased. In further cross-examination, Kajod (P.W.1) admitted that Vijay Balai and Mukesh Nayak had grappled. Þ;g ckr lgh gS fd fot; cykbZ o eqds’k uk;d vkil esa xqFkexqFkk gks jgs FksA Þ This witness denied the fact that Mukesh Balai and Mukesh Nayak were giving beating to each other with fists and kick blows. This witness stated as under:- Þ;g ckr xyr gS fd eqds’k cykbZ o eqds’k uk;d vkil esa ykr ?kqlksa ls ekjihV dj jgs gksAÞ Dr. Manoj Sharma (P.W.2), on 13.11.2008, at 8:15 PM, had medico-legally examined Mukesh son of Badri and in the injury report (Exhibit-P/5), he had noted following injuries on the person of Mukesh, the deceased as under:- (i) Stab wound, 2” x 1” x peritoneal cavity deep, right hypochondria 4 cm over anterior axillary line. (ii) Stab wound, 2” x 1”x peritoneal cavity deep, 3” below Ist wound forward mid line. (iii) Stab wound, 2” x 1” x 1½” muscle deep, lateral aspect of M/3 of right thigh. (iv) Stab wound, 1” x ½” x muscle deep, ulnar aspect of right forearm ?. Dr. Manoj Sharma (P.W.2) on 13.11.2008 at 8:30 PM, had also examined Kajod (P.W.1) and as per injury report Exhibit-P/3, had noted following injuries on the person of Kajod, as under:- (i) Stab wound, 1½” deep x 1” x ½” just below Jifisternum. (ii) Stab wound, 1” x ½” x 1 ½” deep, 4” above umbilicus. (iii) Stab wound, ½” x ¼” x 1” deep, left costal angle. (iv) Stab wound, 1” x ½” x 1” deep, left arm posteriorly. (ii) Stab wound, 1” x ½” x 1 ½” deep, 4” above umbilicus. (iii) Stab wound, ½” x ¼” x 1” deep, left costal angle. (iv) Stab wound, 1” x ½” x 1” deep, left arm posteriorly. A perusal of the above injuries reveal that all the injuries suffered by deceased Mukesh Nayak and Kajod (P.W.1) were caused by incised penetrating weapon. Thus, we can safely conclude that in the occurrence, one weapon i.e. knife has been used. The prosecution, to lend corroboration to Kajod (P.W.1), author of the FIR, examined Suresh Kumar (P.W.3), Dhanveer (P.W.4) and Manoj Kumar (P.W.5), as witnesses. Suresh Kumar (P.W.3) in the court stated that Mukesh Balai had caught hold of Mukesh Nayak. Pappu @ Ramlal and Vijay Balai had caused him injuries. We reproduce the following portion from the testimony of Suresh Kumar (P.W.3) as under:- Þblds i’pkr~ eqds’k cykbZ us eqds’k uk;d dks ihNs ls idM+ fy;k vkSj iIiw xqtZj] o fot; cykbZ us pkdwvksa ls eqds’k uk;d dks ekjuk ‘kq: dj fn;k] fQj chp cpko djus esa lcls igys dtksM+ vk;k mldks Hkh bu rhuksa eqyfteku gkftj vnkyr us pkdwvksa ls ekjihV dh fQj eqds’k uk;d bl ekjihV ls ?kk;y gksdj jksM+ ds FkksM+k vkxs tkdj Ldwy ds lkeus ?kk;y gksdj fxj x;kAÞ Similarly, Dhanveer (P.W.4) in the court also stated that Mukesh Balai encircled and took Mukesh Nayak in grip from rear and Pappu @ Ramlal and Vijay Balai had caused him injuries. To similar effect is the statement made by Manoj Kumar (P.W.5). Surajmal (P.W.6) in the court stated that about twelve months ago, at 7:00 - 8:00 PM, all the three accused were giving abuses to Mukesh Nayak. Pappu @ Ramlal and Vijay Balai had caused injuries with knife to Mukesh Nayak. This witness further stated that Mukesh Balai caused injuries on the face of Mukesh Nayak, but said injury landed on the hand of Mukesh Nayak and thereafter, he had taken Mukesh Nayak into grip. 15. We need not notice the statement of remaining witnesses as they have participated in the investigation. 16. We have heard Mr. J.R. Choudhary and Mr. M.I. Abbasi, who have caused appearance for the appellant Mukesh Balai and Vijay Balai. We have also heard Mr. Saransh Saini counsel for the appellant Pappu @ Ramlal and Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 17. 16. We have heard Mr. J.R. Choudhary and Mr. M.I. Abbasi, who have caused appearance for the appellant Mukesh Balai and Vijay Balai. We have also heard Mr. Saransh Saini counsel for the appellant Pappu @ Ramlal and Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 17. We have also perused the testimony of Raju Meena (D.W.1), Ranjeet (D.W.2), Dr. Rajesh Jain (D.W.3) and Uttam (D.W.4). 18. Raju Meena (D.W.1) in the court deposed that Vijay Balai and Mukesh Balai were sitting in his shop, when Mukesh Nayak and Kajod came. They started grappling with Vijay Balai and caused him injuries with Danda. Meanwhile, Mukesh Balai intervened to save his brother. Then injuries were caused to Mukesh Balai. This witness stated that Mukesh Balai and Kajod due to grappling fell on the counter made of wood and glass. The counter was broken and Mukesh Nayak and Kajod suffered injuries from the sharp iron pattis coming out of counter. 19. To similar effect is the statement made by Ranjeet (D.W.2). Both the witnesses have stated that Mukesh Nayak and Kajod have suffered injuries ÞdkmUVj dh ifV~V;ksa dh pksV yxh FkhAÞ 20. Dr. Rajesh Jain (D.W.3) had examined Mukesh Balai and found on his person abrasion, 1 x ½ cm, and another abrasion brown colour 3x1cm. Mukesh Balai had also complained of pain. Vijay Balai had suffered six injuries. A perusal of the injuries of Vijay Balai reveals there was presence of swelling 5x2 cm on the right ear, brown colour abrasion of dimension 5x3cm on left elbow was also noted in the injury report. There was also presence of swelling of 10x5cm on the right leg. Swelling, 5x2cm was also present on left thigh. An abrasion of size 1 x ½ cm, was also found on the chest and Vijay Balai had also complained of pain. 21. Injuries on the person of Mukesh Balai and Vijay Balai are simple and superficial in nature. It is apparent that the defence version given by the witnesses is false. Looking into nature of injuries on the person of deceased Mukesh Nayak and Kajod (P.W.1), we are of the firm view that they have suffered injuries with weapon knife and the said injuries cannot be caused with iron pattis coming out of broken counter. It is apparent that the defence version given by the witnesses is false. Looking into nature of injuries on the person of deceased Mukesh Nayak and Kajod (P.W.1), we are of the firm view that they have suffered injuries with weapon knife and the said injuries cannot be caused with iron pattis coming out of broken counter. No broken counter has been taken into possession by the police, neither defence witnesses have given the version to above effect to any authority at the earliest. The defence version projected in the court is a false version and hence, at the outset same is rejected. 22. Lookise version, which is far away from the truth. 23. Having rejected the defence version, we have been put to guard to examine the testimony of the witnesses. 24. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 13.11.2008 at 8:00 PM. The statement of Kajod (P.W.1) was recorded on 13.11.2008 at 8:45 PM. The case was registered at Police Station Newai on 13.11.2008 at 9:35 PM. However, the special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 14.11.2008 at 12:35 PM. This there is delay of more than fifteen hours in reaching of special report to Illaqa Magistrate. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar [ (2002) 9 S.C.C. 147 ], while considering the effect of delay in reaching of special report, has observed as under:- “6. This Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 CrPC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the “may be” and “must be”. The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said report in terms of Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission. “ 26. Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor could not justify the improvement made by the witnesses in the court. Kajod (P.W.1) in the Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) has specifically stated that Vijay Balai and Pappu @ Ramlal armed with knife had caused injuries to Mukesh Nayak. He had also stated in his statement that Vijay Balai and Pappu @ Ramlal had caused injuries to him. In Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) no specific role has been assigned to Mukesh Balai. 27. This witness i.e. Kajod (P.W.1), in the court improved version given to the investigating agency and stated that Mukesh Balai had caught hold of Mukesh Nayak. He further improved the version and stated in the court that Mukesh Balai had caused him injuries. This witness was duly confronted with his statement Exhibit-P/1 recorded by the police and statement Exhibit-D/1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation. We have already reproduced the portion where attention of the witness was drawn to the statement Exhibit-P/1 and Exhibit-D/1 by the defence counsel. This witness has been duly confronted and he could not explain as to why material fact that Mukesh Balai caught hold of the deceased, had not been noted in the statement made to the police. 28. We have already reproduced the portion where attention of the witness was drawn to the statement Exhibit-P/1 and Exhibit-D/1 by the defence counsel. This witness has been duly confronted and he could not explain as to why material fact that Mukesh Balai caught hold of the deceased, had not been noted in the statement made to the police. 28. Thus, we cannot rule out that with the passage of time, consultations and deliberations have crept in and Mukesh Balai was introduced as an accused. The special report as stated earlier had reached Illaqa Magistrate after fifteen hours of the registration of the case. Therefore, in initial version, presence of Mukesh Balai was introduced and subsequently by improvement in the court, role was assigned to him that he caught hold of the deceased Mukesh Nayak and has also caused injuries to Kajod (P.W.1). At the cost of repetition, we may emphasize that this was not in the police statement Exhibit-P/1 leading to registration of FIR and Exhibit- D/1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 29. As to why Mukesh Balai has been introduced as an accused and assigned specific role, reason is not difficult to find. Kajod (P.W.1) had specifically stated in the court that brother of Pappu @ Ramlal earlier had a fight with Mukesh Nayak and that was the grudge for causing injuries. We have already reproduced the exact portion from the testimony of Kajod (P.W.1) to this effect in the earlier part of our judgment. 30. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that witnesses were not present and due to inimical relations, they have deposed falsely, cannot be accepted by us. In the present case, Kajod (P.W.1) is an injured witness. Other witnesses are also residents of same locality. On 13.11.2008, at 8:00 PM, the witnesses after completion of their avocation are bound to be present in the locality where they are residing. Kajod (P.W.1) will be last person to screen the real offenders though, it cannot be ruled out that the witness has inflated the number of accused. 31. Having examined the evidence, we are of the view that the medical evidence corroborate the ocular version. Injury on the person of deceased Mukesh Nayak and Kajod (P.W.1) can be caused by knife. Therefore, medical evidence supports the ocular version. 32. 31. Having examined the evidence, we are of the view that the medical evidence corroborate the ocular version. Injury on the person of deceased Mukesh Nayak and Kajod (P.W.1) can be caused by knife. Therefore, medical evidence supports the ocular version. 32. Thus, taking into consideration the delay in reaching of the special report, improvement made by the witnesses and fact that Mukesh Balai as per the witness had caught hold of deceased Mukesh Nayak, we are of the view that as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be extended to him by holding that witnesses had made an attempt to widen the net and inflate the number of accused especially when previous enmity is admitted by the witness. Thus, we extend benefit of doubt to accused appellant Mukesh Balai. 33. As a result of above discussion, we accept the appeal preferred on behalf of accused appellant Mukesh Balai and acquit him of all the charges and set aside the conviction pronounced and sentence awarded upon him by the trial court. However, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by Vijay Balai and Pappu @ Ramlal and the appeal preferred on their behalf is dismissed. 34. In view of the above we order that appellant Mukesh Balai be released forthwith if in custody and not required any other case. Keeping, however, in view of the provisions Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Mukesh Balai is directed to forthwith to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and surety bond of the like amount before the trial court. The bonds was furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Appeal No. 22/2011 dismissed/Appeal No. 178/2011 partly allowed.