- (1.) Heard.
(2.) Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on 20.4.2011, but thereafter co-convicts Tahru Mandal and Narayan Mandal have been acquitted on 11.07.2011 vide Annexure 1 on the same set of evidence. He referred to the observations made by the trial court in the said judgment dated 11.07.2011 in paragraph 8. Moreover, he submitted that the appellant is aged about 64 years. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prayer for bail was rejected on 20.04.2011 on merits even after considering the age of the appellant and it was observed that there are sufficient materials against the appellant in support of his conviction and the manner of crime is heinous in nature. He further submitted that the observations made in the paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 11.07.2011 are in relation to the co-convicts who were before the court in that trial.
(3.) After hearing the parties and going through the records, it appears that prayer for bail was rejected on merits on 20.04.2011. The judgment dated 11.07.2011 relied by on behalf of the appellant, has been rendered keeping in view the prosecution case against the co- convicts Tahru Mandal and Narayan Mandal who were facing trial before the court. So far as the judgment under appeal is concerned, it has been rendered keeping in view the materials brough on record as against the appellant. In our opinion, no grounds are made out for reconsidering the prayer for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. I. A. No. 1519 of 2011 stands disposed of.;