After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the background of this case, this Court finds that according to the prosecution, the victim died unnatural death, who consumed poison on 23rd September, 2023 and this happened only within a period of three years of her marriage. No doubt, in the previous FIR, the appellants were not put to trial, but a perusal of the compromise would indicate that the parties had a dispute which is specifically mentioned in the settlement dated 26th November, 2022. After revival of her matrimonial relations with her husband and others, the dispute again erupted between the parties and the allegations in the subsequent FIR also echoes the voice of the first FIR. According to prosecution, sufficient evidence is collected during investigation, which indicates involvement of the accused appellants, therefore, at this stage, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellants as the material witnesses are yet to be examined. Further, a reading of the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the accusedappellants. The order does not suffer from any
