The Allahabad High Court in the case Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P observed and has observed that it is not for the court, in a bail matter, to form any opinion which is being based on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses as it would amount to evaluating the evidence. The bench headed by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed and has rejected the second bail petition moved by a murder accused (Krishna Kant) on the new ground that since 2 of the witnesses of last seen evidence have not supported the case of prosecution and the same has been declared hostile and thus the bail has to be granted to him. The court observed that stressing that hostility of the witnesses cannot be a new ground for granting bail to the accused applicant. However, the court remarked that if any opinion is being taken on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses, it amounts to evaluating the evidence by this Court, which being impermissible while deciding the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It being a well settled principle that trial court can record conviction based on the evidence of the Investigating Officer also. Thus, the ground which is urged and cannot be considered for granting bail to accused applicant. Facts of the Case: In the case, the applicant has been accused of killing the deceased (Govind) with the aid of a co-accused on 01.06.2018. In the morning of 02.06.2018, the dead body was found on the morning and that is when the informant (father of the deceased) lodged an FIR. The case of prosecution rests on the last seen evidence of the informant and other witnesses, who have stated in their statements under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure that they have seen the deceased wherein accompanying the accused persons on 01.06.2018. Earlier, the Applicant’s bail plea in November 2019 was been rejected by the High Court and an chargesheet in the case has been filed against the Accused/applicant under Section 302. An instant second bail plea was moved by him on the ground that the two last seen witnesses have turned hostile and the applicant is in jail for more than three years and thus, even if all the witnesses are being examined, the possibility of the case ending in the conviction of the applicant is very remote and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It has been submitted by AGA that though two of the witnesses of last seen evidence have turned hostile and the informant (P.W3) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the trial court would be at liberty for taking a view of weather to convict the accused or not based on the other evidence given by other witnesses during the trial. Accordingly, the court observed while taking into account the submissions that the hostility of the witnesses cannot be a new ground for granting bail to the accusedapplicant. Further, the court rejected the new ground for bail and the trial court is being directed to expedite the trial in the case.
