' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.---Petitioner (Irfan Khan) through this Criminal Miscellaneous seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,187, dated 2-9-2007 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal.
2. The contention of learned counsel is that petitioner has been falsely involved in the case; that entire male members of the family have been roped in; that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case; that two Investigating Officers declared the petitioner innocent; that allegation against the petitioner is only general in nature and that petitioner is behind the bars without any progress in the trial.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, opposed this bail application by arguing that petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. With a role; that trial has commenced and examination-in-chief of eight prosecution witnesses has been recorded but the petitioner is avoiding their cross-examination; that prosecution version is fully corroborated by medical evidence as well as by the witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And that even the complainant of instant case has been done to death by the accused/petitioner party.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record.
5. So far as the contention of learned counsel that petitioner has been declared innocent is concerned, it is well-settled now that ipsi dixit of police is not binding on the Court unless the same is based on solid A and cogent reasoning. Even it is informed that petitioner's name has been placed in Column No,3 of the challan and in almost similar circumstances this Court in the case "Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others v. The State" (2007 PCr.L.J 560) refused bail to the accused.
Further, although the learned counsel for the petitioner had asserted that there is no progress in the trial, but the learned counsel for the complainant with reference to the order sheet of the trial Court has pointed out that examination-in-chief of as many as eight prosecution witnesses have been recorded but the petitioner is not cross-examining those witnesses. In this view of the situation, the petitioner cannot take plea of protracted trial. The alleged discrepancy in ocular and medical evidence is deep and premature appraisal of the evidence, which is not permissible at this stage because the trial has already made quite a substantive headway and any observation at this stage may cause prejudice to either party. In "Muhammad Jahangir Badar v. The State and others" (PLD 2003 SC 525) the apex Court observed as under:-- "If the trial of the case had commenced, then, instead of releasing the accused on bail, direction be made for expeditious disposal of the case by adopting certain modalities to ensure that the accused was not detained further for indefinite period."
' Further, in "Muhammad Nawaz v. The State" (2002 SCM R 1381), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan deliberately avoided to attend to the merits of the case lest it might prejudice the case of either party and dismissed the bail application. However, directed the trial Courts to expedite the matter and finalize the case as early as possible. In view of the above situation, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. This petition as such is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court shall ensure that trial of the case is concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of four months of receipt of this order.