Kalimullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit on dated 4.5.2012. This is second bail application of the applicant on the ground that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application prosecution witnesses including the first informant Shankar and his brother in law Arjun who claim to be the eye witnesses of the incident were examined as P.W. 1 and 2 respectively. Both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 23.3.2011. 3. I have gone through the deposition made by both the aforesaid witnesses. They have not supported the prosecution story but they have been cross examined at length. Shanker P.W.1 has been invited towards the contents of the report lodged by him on each and every aspect of the matter as it appears. The said statement is to be now put to the I.O. and head constable as it has occurred in the statement of these witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused was in jail still he succeeded in declaring these witnesses hostile in this heinous offence of murder. The demeanour of the witnesses have been looked into by the learned trial court and it is he who is in better position to appreciate the evidence and to touch the real connotation of the evidence given by them. 4. So far as the long dfetention of accused in jail for about a year is concerned that itself is not sufficent to grant bail to the applicant who has been assigned the specific role of committing the murder of the deceased with lathi causing fracture of perital bone. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the bail is refused and the application for bail stands rejected. 6. Considering the long detenntion of the accused applicant in jail and also the fact that the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the trial court is directed to sit tight over the matter and make its endeavour best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 months. 6. Considering the long detenntion of the accused applicant in jail and also the fact that the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the trial court is directed to sit tight over the matter and make its endeavour best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 months. There is no bar to dispose of the trial earlier to the expiry of the aforesaid period of 4 months and if the defence chooses to dispense with all the formal proof of the documents prepared by the formal witnesses including the I.O. head constable and doctor concern. _____________