JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, stands instituted, by the petitioner, under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for his being ordered to be released, from, judicial custody, wherein he is extantly lodged, for his allegedly committing offences punishable, under, Section 302, 201 of I.P.C registered with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P., in case FIR No. 188/18 of 5.7.2018. 2. Bail application bearing No. 1815 of 2018, was, dismissed as withdrawn, under, orders recorded on 4.1.2019, and, the instant petition is cast subsequent thereto, (i) and, the requisite changed circumstances, since, the, dismissal, as withdrawn, of, the earlier petition, and, the institution of the instant petition (ii) are, espoused to be comprised, in, the daughter of the deceased while stepping into the witness box as PW-2, rather making a statement, hence, belying the efficacy, of, the recitals embodied in the dying declaration, authored by the deceased, (iii) wherein the latter ascribes an inculpatory role, vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein, (iv) and, there through the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes an espousal before this Court, qua no credence being meted thereto, hence, the bail applicant being entitled, to, the grant of bail. 3. Be that as it may, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to impute, or, disimpute any credence, to, the dying declaration, as, authored by the deceased, hence imputing penal ascriptions qua the petitioner, (i) rather merely on anvil, of, the testification of PW-2, hence belying the recitals borne therein, hence echoing qua hers being at the relevant time available along with, the, accused, as, PW-1 has contrarily thereto, supported the recitals borne, in the dying declaration, and, when in gauging their comparative evidentiary worth, this Court would be in appropriately arrogating, to itself, the, duties of the learned trial Judge, in, the latter rather befittingly discerning their comparative evidentiary worth. 4. In sequel, this Court is constrained, not to allow, the instant petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial Judge, is directed, to, within three months, conclude the trial arising, from, case FIR No. 188/2018. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation, made hereinabove.