N. L. GANGULY, J. This Is 2nd bail application in Case Crime No. 187 of 1993 under Section 302, I. P. C. , P. S. Sipri Bazar, Distt. Jhansi. The 1st bail application was heard by me and after exchange of affidavits between the applicant and the complainant-informants counsel and perusal of the case diary, I was not satisfied that any case for bail was made out, hence the 1st bail application was rejected on 13th September, 1993. 2. This 2nd Bail application has been filed after fresh bail application on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 5-2-1994. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the fresh grounds and circumstances seeking bail for the applicant are as under: (i) Rajesh Yadav a recovery witness of the shirt stained with blood alleged to be belonging to the applicant was recovered in his presence. The said witness has filed an affidavit dated 14th December, 1993 before the Sessions Judge/chief Judicial Magis trate, Jhansi in the bail application filed on behalf of the appli cant. The said witness defined to be a witness for recovery of the blood stained shirt: (ii) Ram Sahai Yadav filed an affidavit dated 20-12-1993 in the bail application moved before the C. J. M. Jhansi denied to be the witness of fact that he had seen applicant Mukund Agarwal along-with Dass Ishai and deceased Neeraj together on 15-4-1993 in the Maruti Van while drinking liquor. He denied to have known Neeraj Agarwal deceased and Dhruva Agarwal from before. He denied to have stated any fact before the police. He denied the allegations and facts recorded to have been stated by him to the police contained in the case diary; (iii) The affidavit of Ram Das Prajapati dated 20-12-1993 filed before the C. J. M. Jhansi denied his earlier statements given by him to the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. He denied in the said affidavit that he had never seen any person in Maruti Van taking amongst them selves nor he had seen the deceased and the accused person drinking beer together. 4. Co-accused Dass had given confessional statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. involving himself and the accused. He also is said to have filed an affidavit. He is said to have made the confessional statement under pressure of the police. 5. 4. Co-accused Dass had given confessional statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. involving himself and the accused. He also is said to have filed an affidavit. He is said to have made the confessional statement under pressure of the police. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment dated 9-11-1993 given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in a case under Sections 279, 338, 427, I. P. C. in which the prosecution case was that the accused applicant while driving away with the Maruti bearing No. UP 93/9115 involved in a car accident injuring Khayali Ram and his sala Munni Lal at 8 a. m. on the same date and near about the same time of occurrence of murder. The case was tried by the C. J. M. , Jhansi. The prosecution witnesses were won over and they turned hostile. With the result the C. J. M. acquitted the accused applicant in the case under Sections 279, 338 and 427, I. P. C. by the judgment dated 9-11-1993. The incident of murder and the accident by car is said to be dated 15/16th April, 1993 and the trial of the car accident case was concluded and the judgment delivered within about 61/2 months of the incident. The learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party and learned A. G. A submitted that the cases of 1985-86 and onward are pending before the C. J. M. and the other Magistrate at Jhansi and the case which had a bearing on the murder case was got finally decided and the accused acquitted within 6j months of the incident by winning over the witnesses who have turned hostile. It has also been argued that after the rejection of the 1st Bail application by this court, the court below was pleased to grant short term bail (parole) to the applicant and during that period, the accused-applicant and his family members managed to procure by winning over and tampering the pro secution witnesses and got their affidavits filed with the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. 6. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order rejecting the bail application of the applicant. A perusual of the said bail rejection order shows that the Sessions Judge was making a recommendatory note for allowing the bail to the applicant. 6. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order rejecting the bail application of the applicant. A perusual of the said bail rejection order shows that the Sessions Judge was making a recommendatory note for allowing the bail to the applicant. The order shows that the Sessions Judge had not granted the bail only on the ground that 1st bail application was rejected by the High Court. 7. It is not explained or clear from the record as to why the prosecution witness in what circumstances, went to the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi to fill their affidavits. Neither it was called for nor there was any necessity for filing such affidavits. Thus, witnesses could have plainly stated correct facts when asked to appear before the trial Judge. These facts coupled with the fact that all these manoeuvring and tampering of the prosecution witness was done after the 1st bail application was rejected and the applicant was granted (parole) short term bail by the court below itself. 8. The blood stained shirt belonging to the applicant recovered and the blood stained found in the Maruti Van and the blood group of the deceased arc the same. Besides there are few more witnesses, who have not filed any affidavit, as has been procured from the other prosecution witnesses. The court while considering the bail application, are not supposed to shut their eyes from the prevailing attempts and practice of tampering of the witnesses for the prosecution. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at length and Sri Gopal Chaturvedi and learned A. G. A. , I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant in the facts and the circumstances of the case, narrated above. 10. It is for the trial court to assess and appreciate the evidence of all such witnesses, who may be examined by the prosecution including those witnesses who have filed their affidavits before the Magistrate. It is not always necessary to accept as sacrosanct whatever is said by the witness, who has turned hostile or is won over by the accused person. The jurisdiction and discretion of the court is always there to appreciate the correct facts and cir cumstances of each and every case. It is not always necessary to accept as sacrosanct whatever is said by the witness, who has turned hostile or is won over by the accused person. The jurisdiction and discretion of the court is always there to appreciate the correct facts and cir cumstances of each and every case. I am also taking this view that mere filing of affidavits by the prosecution witnesses may not be taken easily as ground for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses at the bail stage and granting bail to such accused persons, who manage to tamper or win over the prosecu tion witnesses. The courts below should also keep in its mind that mere filing of affidavits uncalled for by the court itself, it filed before the court, has to be scrutinized and examined with suspicious that such affidavits was filed with free consent or was produced by coercive influence, intimation or some other considerations. It may be left for the trial court to consider such affidavits if filed in the trial to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution case. 11. For the facts and circumstances of the present bail application, I do not consider it appropriate that any bail should be granted to the applicant. However, it is directed that the Sessions Judge before whom the case is pend ing, shall endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest. No unnecessary adjournment should be granted to either side. The learned counsel for the parties are also requested to co-operate in the speedy disposal of the trial itself. 12. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of the present bail application and shall not be prejudice the case of the defence or the prosecution in any manner. 13. The 2nd bail application is rejected. Boil application rejected. .