JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application fourth of the petitioner Abdul Valid, and the third by Haji Mukhtyar Ali has been filed on 12-11-92 on the ground that they may be released on bail for bringing four persons who were present on the roof of Haji Building in their defence. 2. Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even according to the prosecution four persons were present at the time of starting of dispute on the roof and the petitioners are entitled to be bailed out for producing them in their defence, so that he can prove that the petitioner Hazi Mukhtiyar Ali was not present and the complainant party was the aggressor. He also submits that on merits also, no case for conviction is made out. He has placed reliance on Ishab Khan v. State (Western Law Cases (Raj) 1992(1)-144) . 3. Mr. Singhvi, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the prosecution has already been completed and the case is at final stage. He also submits that the case relied on by the counsel for the petitioner has been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and the same was not found to be applicable to the present case. He further submits that in that case, there was no direct evidence and extra judicial confession was made by the petitioner before a Panchayat of the community members and nobody else in the family was there to look after the case of the accused and to bring the witnesses to be examined in defence, which was considered to be material and relevant but in the present case there is sufficient material which has come on record to prove their guilt and a brother of the petitioner who is law graduate is defending the case of the petitioners effectively from the very beginning. He also submits that the point of right of private defence and that the complainant party was the aggressor can only be decided at final stage. He lastly submits that the main case is ripe for hearing and in case they are granted bail there is every likelihood of absconding of the petitioners as foreign currency notes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have also been recovered from the petitioners alongwith other articles Mr Singhvi, therefore, Prays that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted bail. He lastly submits that the main case is ripe for hearing and in case they are granted bail there is every likelihood of absconding of the petitioners as foreign currency notes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have also been recovered from the petitioners alongwith other articles Mr Singhvi, therefore, Prays that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted bail. He has placed reliance on Shahzad Hassan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hassan Khan, ( AIR 1987 SC 1613 ) . 4. This bail application was filed on 12-10-92, record was called and it has come up before me. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the orders passed on the bail applications filed earlier by the petitioners and perused the relevant record, as well as the case law cited at Bar. 6. It is no doubt true that an accused is presumed under the law to be innocent till his guilt is proved. The accused should be given a reasonable opportunity to look after his case properly and he has a right to lead his evidence, so that he may produce witness/witnesses who may prove his innocence, which will be in consonance with justice and fair play enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time an accused who is facing murder trial cannot be granted bail only on the pretext that he is to find out persons who are identifiable by him only and will give evidence on his behalf, as to my mind the opportunity to defend does not mean that the accused should be released on bail to arrange defence witnesses and to find out witnesses to prove his innocence particularly when there are other persons in the family to find out defence witnesses. 7. In the instant case, the main ground of seeking bail is that the petitioners will produce four labourers who are identifiable by them only as they were present at the time of start of dispute to prove that the complainant party was the aggressor but the petitioners have not named any of the labourers not any particulars have been stated about the said persons who were seen by them once that too at the time of dispute. As such the ground taken by the counsel for the petitioners does not appeal me as to how the petitioners will find out so called four labourers to whom they saw once in a city having population of about 8 lacs when the accused persons do not know them earlier and even the addresses, names and working place are also not known to them more particularly when no suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses about them. Counsel for the petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of Ishab Khan v. State (supra) case as each case depends on the facts of its own and granting of bail cannot be a precedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not stated anything to rebut the observations made by this Court while rejecting the second bail application on 8-4-1992 that possibility of petitioners' fleeing out from the hands of justice cannot also be completely ruled out. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, I don't consider it a fit case to release the petitioners on bail to find out the alleged Court labourers for their defence. 8. Since the prosecution evidence has been completed, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, as going into the merits of the case may affect the trial adversely and prejudice the case of either side. Under these circumstances, when nothing new has been brought on record in their fourth inning, I do not consider it a fit case where the petitioners; Haji Mukhtiyar Ali and Abdul Valid should be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application for bail filed by the petitioners Haji Mukhtiyar Ali and Abdul Valid is dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.Bail rejected. *******