ORDER By the Court.- 1. Heard the parties on the prayer for bail. 2. It is submitted that the Prosecution has projected PWs 5, 6, and 10 as eye-witnesses but they are not the eye-witnesses of the actual occurrence and that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity and that there are several contradictions in the evidences of the wit nesses and that the defence has been seriously prejudiced by non-examination of the I.O. 3. On the other band, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Prosecution witnesses are consistent and that the co-convict, Devi Mandai against whom there is allegation that he provoked the appellants to assault the deceased and who was on bail during the trial, also prayed for bail in connected Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 251 of 2011, but it was dismissed as not pressed on 06th June, 2011. 4. In the circumstances, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Maharaj Ray [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 328 of 2011] on the ground of his age. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant Maharaj Ray [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 328 of 20111 is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10.000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court (A.D.J.. F.T.C. 11. Deoghar) in connection with S.T. No. 330 of 2006 on the conditions that (1) one of the bailors will be close relative of the appellant. (ii) the other bailor should have landed property within the jurisdiction of the Court. & (iii) the appellant will deposit the amount of fine imposed on him by the trial Court without prejudice and subject to the decision of the case. 5. The prayer for bail of the other appellants. Tent Ray @ Tetu Ray [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 320 of 2011]. Samar Ray [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 355 of 2011] and Sukar Ray [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 344 of 2011] is, accordingly, rejected. Bails rejected.