JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no connecting evidence against the petitioners so as to make them accused, even copper material was recovered from a truck, which was not found in the possession of anyone including the petitioners. It is stated that the only connecting evidence is the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the petitioners but neither recovery is trustworthy nor the identification of body because the body was found in decomposed condition, thus body could not be identified, hence looking to all these circumstances, petitioners are entitled for grant of bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed this bail application and submits that there exists connecting evidence in view of the fact that deceased was a truck driver of the truck loaded with copper worth of Rs. 62 lacs and was to be delivered at Mumbai but when the material did not reach at the destination, an F.I.R. was lodged making allegations against the driver and the truck owner bearing truck owner bearing truck No. RJ 18 GA 1095. It is also stated that on recovery of the material in another truck bearing truck No. RJ 18 GA 0270, which otherwise found to be moving along with earlier truck driven by the deceased, thus based on that and the recovery of the toll tax documents of the trucks, petitioners were arrested and on their in- stance, dead body was recovered from a well. It is further stated that recovery at the in- stance of the petitioners is even a material evidence at this stage, thus Court may go in the question as to whether the identification of the body is proper or not as it is the subject matter of the trial. It is stated that in the postmortem report, it has come that body was tied up by the rope and is the case of strangulation, thus looking to the prima facie case against the petitioners, their may not be granted bail. 4. It is stated that in the postmortem report, it has come that body was tied up by the rope and is the case of strangulation, thus looking to the prima facie case against the petitioners, their may not be granted bail. 4. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, which may effect the out come of the trial but looking to the facts available on record. I am not inclined to accept this bail application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 5. It is necessary to observe that the matter needs an early trial looking to the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties, thus it is directed to the trial Court that matter may be heard for framing of the charges on the next date fixed, if the charges are not already framed and if the charges are ultimately framed against the petitioners then to expedite the trial and if possible then complete it within a period of three months. For that purpose, if need be then the matter may be taken up on day today basis. If for one or the other reason, the matter is not decided finally within the aforesaid period then the petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application with all the material, which may come within the intervening period. 6. It is also directed that while carrying out the direction aforesaid, the statement of the doctor may be recorded as a first witness.Petition dismissed. *******