- (1.) IN this interlocutory application, Appellant No.1 Chetlal Mahto and Appellant No.3Sita Ram Mahto have prayed for their release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants' prayer for bail was earlier rejected, they have remained in custody for more than five years; there is no likelihood of appeal being taken up for hearing in near future; the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code; Appellant No.1 is father -in -law and Appellant No.3 is brother -in -law there is no direct allegation against them; there is no cogent material in support of conviction of the said appellants. Learned A.P.P. opposed the appellants' prayer for bail and submitted that the appellants' prayer was earlier rejected on merit and no fresh ground has been made out to consider their prayer for bail; while rejecting the appellants' prayer for bail, by order dated 29th September, 2010 liberty was given to the appellants to renew their prayer for bail after completion of three years of custody and as such the appellants' payer for bail is liable to be rejected.
(3.) REGARD being had to the nature of the allegation and also that appellants' prayer for bail was rejected earlier on merit, we are not inclined to release the appellants, above named, on bail.;