JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.06.2012 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby accused-appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo three months imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that Babulal (P.W.4) son of Chhuttan submitted a written report (Exhibit P-8) to SHO, Police Station Bandikui on 10.10.2010 at 8.30 A.M. stating therein that he was resident of Ward No. 1, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa. He and his deceased brother Tulsiram son of Chhuttan Lal were residing in Ram Chandra Ki Dhani in two rooms. The informant went to sleep at 10.00 P.M. on 09.10.2010. At that time, Ram Phool Meena, their neighbourer Hari Om and Mukesh Meena resident of Ram Chandra Ki Dhani were sitting with his brother Tulsiram. When the informant woke up in the following morning at 6.00 A.M., he found that his brother has been murdered by someone after slitting his neck. Blood was speared all over the floor. His dead body was lying on the cot outside the room. Pieces of meat and roti were spread in the room. The police was informed on telephone. The police on the basis of the aforesaid written report, registered a regular FIR No. 750/2010 (Exhibit P-35) under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused-appellants in the Court of concerned Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Dausa from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, no witness was produced and only one document was got exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. In defence, no witness was produced and only one document was got exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Hariom @ Arvind argued that learned trail court has committed serious illegality in convicting the accused-appellant for the alleged offences inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant to connect him with the crime. The prosecution has relied on two circumstances against the accused appellant. First circumstance was of last seen and second circumstance was of recovery of weapon and one shirt. The trial court has failed to appreciate that the evidence of last seen was not only against Mukesh and Hari Om, but it was also against Ram Phool (P.W.6) to the effect that he was also with the deceased at the time when he went to sleep. It is also amply proved by evidence that Ram Phool was having money dealings with the deceased. The prosecution could not have therefore excluded accused Ram Phool of the charge sheet. The trial court has recorded wholly perverse finding on the basis of last seen evidence against the accused-appellants as per the statement of Babulal (P.W.4), who stated that when he went to sleep at 10’ O’ Clock, the deceased was in the company of Ram Phool, Mukesh and Hariom. As per the post mortem report (Exhibit P-1), which was conducted at 10.30 A.M., duration of death was 6 to 12 hours before the post mortem was conducted. It indicates that murder of the deceased took place early in the morning. But the prosecution failed to prove that the accused-appellant Hari Om continued to be in company of the deceased in close proximity of time of death of the deceased. Recovery of weapon, kulhadi at the instance of accused-appellant Hari Om vide Exhibit P-11 was made from open place and therefore, said recovery cannot be attributed to the appellant. Recovery of white shirt having blood stains at the instance of Hari Om cannot be considered as reliable evidence unless blood group of the deceased and blood group found of the shirt is same. Recovery of white shirt having blood stains at the instance of Hari Om cannot be considered as reliable evidence unless blood group of the deceased and blood group found of the shirt is same. While one of the prosecution witnesses stated that investigating officer recovered the weapon of offence from the place of occurrence, still prosecution sought the information of the weapon and made the recovery at the instance of accused appellant. It was nobody’s case that the deceased consumed liquor along with the appellant, still investigating officer has recovered empty bottle of liquor only in order to show that the deceased and the accused-appellants were consuming liquor. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to alcohol in the body of deceased has not been proved by the prosecution. Factum of recovery of liquor therefore could not have been used against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel argued that the investigating officer has shown recovery of celphos tablets from the appellant, which is wholly illegal. Those celphos tablets have no concern with the crime. It shows that how much investigating officer was interested to implicate the accused-appellant. It is argued that the trial court erred in believing testimony of interested witnesses. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Statements of witnesses are full of material contradiction, thus, rendering them unreliable. Finding recorded by the learned trial court is based on conjectures and surmises. In the FIR also, no allegation was made that the accused and the deceased consumed liquor together. Referring to statement of Dr. Duli Chand, learned counsel submitted that this witness has proved that in large intestine of the deceased contained fecal metal, which means that the food had been digested. As per the evidence of the prosecution case, accused has consumed meat and liquor with the deceased till late in the night which belies allegation against the accused-appellant. Learned counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to connect the accused-appellant with the offence inasmuch as finger prints of the accused were also not lifted from the place of occurrence or the utensils they used for the purpose of cooking dinner or other surrounding objects. 5. It is argued that motive of the appellant has not at all been proved. Learned counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to connect the accused-appellant with the offence inasmuch as finger prints of the accused were also not lifted from the place of occurrence or the utensils they used for the purpose of cooking dinner or other surrounding objects. 5. It is argued that motive of the appellant has not at all been proved. Learned counsel submitted that kulhadi was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant Hari Om vide Exhibit P-11, information of which under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given vide Exhibit P-36. Accused-appellant Mukesh gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to get recovered farsi vide Exhbit P-37 upon which farsi was recovered vide Exhibit P-10. Learned counsel argued that attesting witnesses to these recoveries have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Babulal (P.W.4) attesting witness to recoveries stated that accused Hari Om got kulhadi recovered from behind the hostel, which was having blood stains whereas this is not substantiated from the post mortem report. As per post mortem report, most of the injuries sustained by the deceased were contusions. Deceased sustained total 11 injuries most of which were contusions. He stated that Mukesh got kulhadi recovered from the adjoining agricultural field. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 157; Anjan Kumar Sarma & Others Vs. State of Assam, (Criminal Appeal No. 560/2014 decided on 23.05.2017); Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2015) 4 SCC 393 ; Arjun Marik and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1994) Supp.2 SCC 372; Bharat Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106 ; judgments of this Court in Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2016 0 Supreme (Raj.) 176; Mahaveer Kevat Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 0 Supreme (Raj.) 171; Heera & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 2 RLW (Raj.) 1213; Ajay Gupta @ Omprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 39/2005 decided on 05.12.2014). 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant Mukesh argued that when a case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt should be raised on the circumstances which are proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. State of Rajasthan, 2005 2 RLW (Raj.) 1213; Ajay Gupta @ Omprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 39/2005 decided on 05.12.2014). 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant Mukesh argued that when a case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt should be raised on the circumstances which are proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled proposition of law that circumstances from which inference as to the guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances and in the present matter according to the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution case cannot be cured by false defence or plea. It is argued that last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. In the present matter, the time gap is not so small, therefore, the possibility of any other person coming in between to commit the crime very much exists due to long gap of time. In such type of cases, theory of last seen together is not applicable. Even according to the version deposed by the prosecution witnesses in support of the last seen evidence, they cannot be considered trustworthy as their testimony suffers from major contradictions. Motive of the crime has not been established which in a case of circumstantial evidence assumes significance. The accused appellant cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of weapon of offence as such recovery is highly suspicious and cannot be taken to have been fully proved, which is evident from the statement of prosecution witnesses to show that even the mandatory provisions have not been complied with by the investigating officer. The accused appellant cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of weapon of offence as such recovery is highly suspicious and cannot be taken to have been fully proved, which is evident from the statement of prosecution witnesses to show that even the mandatory provisions have not been complied with by the investigating officer. The prosecution has failed to determine the blood sample of the accused-appellants to eliminate the possibility of the blood found on his clothes and the weapon to be his own. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nizam & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 413/2007 decided on 04.09.2015) and judgment of this Court in Raghuveer Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 158/2005 decided on 30.01.2015); Nand Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015 (1) RCC (Raj.) 208; and Sheik Abdul Kadir Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P., 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 477. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed. 8. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the trial court. He submitted that accused-appellant has rightly been convicted in view of the enormity of evidence against them. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statement of prosecution witnesses and the exhibits which we shall consider at the appropriate place. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the record of the trial court. 10. Earliest version that is disclosed in the written report by Babulal (P.W.4), younger brother of the deceased was that he left the deceased Tulsiram in the company of Hari Om, Mukesh, Ram Phool at about 10.00 P.M. in the night of previous day, i.e. 09.10.2010 while he was in his house. When he woke up at 6.00 P.M. it transpired that his brother has been murdered. His neck was cut and dead body was lying on the cot outside the room and the blood was spread on the floor. Pieces of meat and roti were lying in the room and outside the room. Babulal has appeared as P.W.4 and supported the aforesaid case in the trial court by stating that the deceased was along with Hari Om, Mukesh, Ram Phool and they were sitting on chabutara (platform) facing their house. This witness was taking meal in the room. Pieces of meat and roti were lying in the room and outside the room. Babulal has appeared as P.W.4 and supported the aforesaid case in the trial court by stating that the deceased was along with Hari Om, Mukesh, Ram Phool and they were sitting on chabutara (platform) facing their house. This witness was taking meal in the room. He saw that these persons were present till 10.00 P.M. in the previous night. He then went to the roof and slept. When he woke up in the morning at 6 O’ clock, he found dead body of Tulsiram on the cot outside the room and blood was spread over the floor. Neck of the deceased was cut. He first of all called his younger brother Ratan and thereafter his family members and neighbourers Ramavtar, Anil etc. He gave written report to police Exhibit P-8. Although it is true that police arrested not only accused-appellants but also Ram Phool, subsequently, Ramphool was left out. Accused Mukesh got ‘barchi’ recovered from the land near the hostel. This barchi was blood stained. It was sealed vide Exhibit P-10, to which memo, this witness was a signatory. Accused Hari Om got kulhadi recovered from the agricultural field near hostel vide recovery memo Exhibit P-11. This witness has been subjected to cross-examination by defence at length. Therein he stated that the police also seized empty bottle of liquor quarter near the chabutara and an empty packet of celphos tablet. The police then went to Meena Hostel and at that time it sealed kulhadi and blood stained barchi. He denied suggestion that Tulsiram and Ram Phool had an altercation on the dispute of some money. He did not hear his sound in the night when he went to sleep. Tulsiram was sleeping on a cot lying on chabutara. He has admitted that boundary wall of their house was surrounded by boundary wall height of which was 6-7 feet but it had no gate. Width of the opening of the gate was about 7-8 feet but it was open and anybody can enter the house. He denied suggestion that there was any dispute with regard to sale of land amongst the brothers. The land adjoining the hostel was earlier owned by Jagdish, Ram Gopal, which was cultivated also. 11. Ram Phool (P.W.6) has also been produced as a witness. He denied suggestion that there was any dispute with regard to sale of land amongst the brothers. The land adjoining the hostel was earlier owned by Jagdish, Ram Gopal, which was cultivated also. 11. Ram Phool (P.W.6) has also been produced as a witness. His house is adjoining the house of the deceased sharing a common wall. He stated that Tulsiram called him at his house at 7.30 P.M. Tulsiram had given a plot to Sukhdev, a friend of this witness and Sukhdev had not paid the due amount of the sale consideration. When Tulsiram enquired from this witness as to when his friend Sukhdev would pay the remaining amount, this witness assured that he would do so within 2-3 days time. Hari Om was nephew of the deceased (banja), son of the sister and Mukesh was also nephew of the deceased (bhatija), son of brother. In the morning when he got up at 6 O’ clock, he heard hue and cry of Babulal (P.W.4) that somebody has murdered his brother Tulsiram. He denied the suggestion that Babulal and Ratan Lal were angry with Tulsiram because of dispute of land. He also denied suggestion that he collected money from Sukhdev and did not pay the same to Tulsiram. He stated that police arrested him but the police during investigation did not find any case proved against him and therefore released him. 12. Shiv Prasad (P.W.8) is also nephew of the deceased being son of his younger brother Ratanlal. He stated that Tulsiram called him in the evening of 09.10.2010 and asked to fetch food for him. At that time, Hari Om and Mukesh were sitting there. When he returned back about 15 minutes, they were still there. Mukesh was cooking meat in the room and Hari Om and Tulsiram were talking each other. In the morning, he heard Babulal, his uncle crying that somebody had murdered Tulsiram. He could not say when Hari Om etc. went from there. Ram Phool was their neighbourer. Tulsiram had sold the adjoining plot on which he had built his house. When he went to his uncle Tulsiram for giving the food, Babulal at that time was sitting in a separate room. Plots were being sold by Tulsiram, which were being owned by all three brothers, the same being their ancestral land. Ram Phool was their neighbourer. Tulsiram had sold the adjoining plot on which he had built his house. When he went to his uncle Tulsiram for giving the food, Babulal at that time was sitting in a separate room. Plots were being sold by Tulsiram, which were being owned by all three brothers, the same being their ancestral land. Major circumstance that has been relied by the trial court for convicting the appellants is that of recovery of weapons, i.e. kulhadi and farsi at the instance of accused-appellants Hari Om and Mukesh respectively and evidence of last seen based on the statement of Babulal (P.W.4) and Ram Phool (P.W.6). Ram Phool himself was added as an accused because evidence of last seen against accused-appellant would also apply to him because he too was seen sitting along with Shiv Prasad (P.W.8). In fact, Ram Phool (P.W.6) also admitted that he was arrested by the police but subsequently when the police did not find any case made out against him, released him. 13. Investigating Officer, Tejraj Singh (P.W.15) has stated that his investigation proved that Ram Phool was also with the deceased in the previous night, but he did not make Ram Phool as accused on the basis of his own statement and statements of others. Though, the complainant also named him as accused but his investigation did not prove that Tulsiram used to sell plots through Ram Phool and Ram Phool owed some money and this was the motive for Ram Phool to commit his murder. Ratan Lal (P.W.2) younger brother of the deceased has stated that the deceased Tulsiram used to sell the plots out of their ancestral agricultural field, which was owned by all three brothers. When he was confronted with his police statement, he denied suggestion that this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile because he denied having given any statement to police in Exhibit P-2. He categorically stated that he did not make any such statement to the police. Although he stated that Hari Om and Mukesh used to frequently visit Tulsi, but this was wrong to suggest that Babulal alleged that these two have murdered Tulsiram. This witness admitted that apart from Hari Om and Mukesh several other persons used to spent time with Tulsiram on his plot. Although he stated that Hari Om and Mukesh used to frequently visit Tulsi, but this was wrong to suggest that Babulal alleged that these two have murdered Tulsiram. This witness admitted that apart from Hari Om and Mukesh several other persons used to spent time with Tulsiram on his plot. He admitted that Ram Phool used to act as mediator in the sale of certain plots and used to realise money from the purchasers and give it to the deceased. He admitted that some time even after receiving money from the buyers, he did not give it to the deceased. But Babulal (P.W.4) informant has not only stated that all three of them were seen sitting with the deceased on chabutara on the previous night, but also stated that police even arrested Ram Phool but later on released him. He saw Ram Phool also sitting with his brother in the written complaint he had named him as well. Though, he denied that there was any dispute between Tulsiram and Ram Phool. In fact, Ram Phool himself has not denied the fact that he was present with the deceased in the night previous to the date of incident. Defence has thus been able to show that the evidence of last seen is much valid as it is valid against the accused-appellant. 14. Coming now to recovery of weapons of offence, investigating officer Tejraj Singh (P.W.15) has stated that accused Hari Om and Mukesh gave information to him under Section 27 vide Exhibits P-36 and P-37 respectively that they can get the weapons of offence recovered from the agricultural land situated behind Meena Hostel where they have concealed such weapons in a pit. In pursuance of Exhibit P-36, one ‘kulhadi’ was recovered at the instance of Hari Om vide Exhibit P-11 and on the basis of Exhibit P-37, one ‘farsi’ was recovered at the instance of Mukesh. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was also recorded at the instance of accused Hari Om for recovery of the packet of celphos tablet from the tool box of his motor cycle and it has been stated therein that he gave the information that he mixed three tablets of celphos in the liquor of the deceased, but the deceased consumed only small quantity of liquor. Empty quarter of liquor and packet of celphos was thrown by him in the agricultural field of Tulsiram near the boundary wall, which he could get recovered. Considering that the main entrance gate of the plot of the deceased was open and the deceased was sleeping in the open on chabutara facing room and open chowk, possibility of anybody entering the plot and committing murder of the deceased also cannot be ruled out. 15. Anil Kumar (P.W.3) is the attesting witness of site plan (Exhibit P-4), recovery of blood stained cement/floor (Exhibit P-5) and controled soil (Exhibit P-6) and blood stained clothes of the deceased (Exhibit P-7). He has stated that police reached there between 6-7 A.M. At that time, the police had seized empty quarter of liquor. At that time also, the police inspected open land adjoining Meena Hostel and found ‘barchi’ there. Empty quarter of liquor was found towards the western side of the house of Tulsiram. BabuLlal (P.W.4), informant has stated that blood stained ‘barchi’ was got recovered by Mukesh in his presence from open land adjoining to hostel vide recovery memo Exhibit P-10. Blood stained kulhadi was recovered at the instance of Hari Om from the agricultural land adjoining hostel vide Exhibit P-11. This witness also stated that when the police prepared the inquest/panchnama at 6.30 A.M. on 10.10.2010 at that time police recovered empty bottles of quarter of liquor and empty packets of celphos tablet near chabutara and then police went to Meena Hostel and at that time police found blood stained kulhadi and blood stained barchi lying there which were seized and memos were prepared. Statement of Babulal (P.W.4) thus clearly show that barchi was recovered in the morning of 10th October. Babulal in cross examination has also admitted that when the police prepared panchnama (Exhibit P-3) at 6.30 A.M. on 10.10.2010, at that time, he inspected adjoining open land surrounding the plot of the deceased, apart from recovery of empty quarter of liquor and empty packet of celphos, police also seized one kulhadi and one blood stained barchi at that very time and prepared memos. Exhibit P-10 and P-11 recoveries memos are shown to have been made by the police on 11.10.2010 but vide memo Exhbit P-3, these two recoveries thus becomes highly doubtful. Exhibit P-10 and P-11 recoveries memos are shown to have been made by the police on 11.10.2010 but vide memo Exhbit P-3, these two recoveries thus becomes highly doubtful. If the ‘kulhadi’ and ‘barchi’ were found lying in the open land, their recovery could not be attributed to the accused-appellants only because they were lastly seen with the deceased at 10.00 P.M. in the previous night of the incident. If that be so, there was no reason why Ram Phool should also not be made accused. 16. Moreover, as per the evidence of case, other persons also used to visit the house of the deceased and evidence has proved that the house of the deceased was surrounded by boundary wall but its main entrance was open and therefore, anybody could enter the premise in the night. Therefore, possibility of anybody entering the plot and committing murder of the deceased also cannot be ruled out. As per FSL Report (Exhibit P-39), Kulhadi was found positive for the presence of human blood but its grouping could not be done. However, farsi (barchi) was found positive for the presence of blood but such blood was not sufficient to determine whether it was human blood or otherwise. If both the weapons were found in the open land, notwithstanding presence of blood on both of them, it would be difficult to connect the accused appellants with said recoveries which the police found on the previous day. As per statement of Bhoor Singh (P.W.5), bottle of celphos was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant Hari Om from the tool box of his motor cycle vide recovery memo Exhibit P-14. Police has thus also shown recovery of four empty quarters of liquor and a celphos packet bottle at the instance of accused Hari Om vide Exhbit P-15 on 13.10.2010 whereas empty quarter of liquor and bottle of celphos, which some of the prosecution witnesses have referred as packet were found by the police near chabutara in the morning on 6.30 on 10.10.2010 when they prepared inquest memo. This recovery also appears to have been falsely foisted upon the accused-appellant Hari Om. Arrest memo of accused Hari Om (Exhibit P-31) indicates that when he was arrested, he was having fresh injury mark on his nose, therefore, shirt of the accused was having blood stains. This recovery also appears to have been falsely foisted upon the accused-appellant Hari Om. Arrest memo of accused Hari Om (Exhibit P-31) indicates that when he was arrested, he was having fresh injury mark on his nose, therefore, shirt of the accused was having blood stains. It could not be rule out whether it was his own blood or not. Admittedly, in the present case, blood group of the accused appellant Hari Om has not been determined. In the arrest memo of Mukesh (Exhibit P-30) again it was shown that his shirt was having blood stains. Even though the prosecution also tried to set up a case that the accused had mixed celphos in the liquor, which was consumed by the deceased and the viscera of the deceased were also preserved and sent to FSL, but no report of FSL has been produced to show whether the deceased has consumed poison or alcohol. Cause of death, even otherwise, was opined to be haemorrhagic shock as a result of injury no. 1. The only factor of stains of blood on T-shirt of Mukesh would not be sufficient to connect him with the crime for the reason that grouping of this blood could not be connected with the group of blood of the deceased established from his own clothes as is evident from FSL report (Exhibit P-39). Besides, the prosecution could not prove any motive against the accused-appellants although to some extent, the motive can be attributed to Ram Phool (P.W.6). 17. In view of above discussion, findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial court are having many infirmities. Chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellants has many missing links and is not conclusive of guilt of the accused-appellants. It does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused-appellants that it were they and none else, who could have committed murder of the deceased. 18. In view of above discussion, present appeals deserve to succeed and are allowed. Impugned judgment dated 15.06.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC. They are in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 19. 18. In view of above discussion, present appeals deserve to succeed and are allowed. Impugned judgment dated 15.06.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC. They are in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 19. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Hariom @ Arvind and Mukesh are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- 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, they, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 20. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected appeal.