N.L. TIBREWAL J.—The petitioner is facing trial for the offences u/Ss. 398, 395, 396, 397, 302/149 IPC. The trial Court has already framed the charges and the dates 18, 20 and 21st Sep., 1990 was fixed for recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses. However, the record of the trial Court was summoned by this Court has order as 7-9-90, as such be statements of the witnesses could not be recorded. 2. The argument of the learned counsel is that co-accused Udai Ram has been released on bail by this Court vide order dt.19-6-90 and the case of the petitioner is at para. He further submits that co-accused Nand Lal has also been granted bail and as such the petitioner should also be given the benefit of bail. 3. So far the petitioner is concerned, he has been identified by a number of eye witnesses who are said to be present at the time of commission of the crime at the house of Mahaveer Prasad. As already stated above, the trial Court had fixed the dates for recording the prosecution evidence and as such it will not be in the interest of justice to minutely make comment on the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that it is not the case where there is no evidence against the petitioner. Whether the evidence of identification by the witnesses could be relied upon or not is a matter which can properly be appreciated at the stage of deciding the case. 4. So far granting bail to Udai Ram is concerned, from the order of this Court itself it appears that the evidence of identification of the accused in the Identification Parade was not brought to the notice of this Court and this Court has observed as under:- The learned P.P. after going through the case-diary says that in the case diary absolutely no material about identification of the accused-petitioner or any recovery of any property from him. Under the circumstances this Court has no option but to release the accused-petitioner on bail. The evidence about the identification of the accused Udai Ram the witnesses in Identification Parade could not be brought in the notice of the Court as Identification Memo was not tagged with the case-diary. 5. Under the circumstances this Court has no option but to release the accused-petitioner on bail. The evidence about the identification of the accused Udai Ram the witnesses in Identification Parade could not be brought in the notice of the Court as Identification Memo was not tagged with the case-diary. 5. So far Nand Lal is concerned, in the order of this Court it appears that he being the resident of Swamion Ki Dhani which is not far from the village where the occurrence took place, was one of the grounds in the mind of the court while granting the bail. 6. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his application is rejected however, it will be in the interest of justice that the trial of the case should be expedited and the leaned trial court shall make heavily efforts to complete the trial within a period of six months after the receipt of the record. The record of the case be sent immediately to the trial Court.