JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Contending that seven prosecution witnesses examined in S.T. No.426 of 2017 have not supported the prosecution case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.04.2017, Md. Mobin Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail particularly when other co-accused persons have been granted bail. 2. Mr. Suraj Mohan, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 3. This is second attempt by the petitioner. 4. Order dated 01.07.2017 records that petitioner is involved in seven criminal cases still in this bail application though he has filed a supplementary-affidavit he has failed to disclose the nature of offence alleged against him in those six cases. The details of the First Information Report in other six cases have also not been disclosed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in those six cases the petitioner has been granted bail. 5. Be that as it may, grant of bail in other six cases is not a ground on which the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. On the witnesses turning hostile during the sessions trial suffice would be to indicate that it is premature to raise a contention that conviction of the petitioner is highly improbable, for such a decision would be taken on conclusion of the trial [refer " Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan , (2004) 7 SCC 528 ]. Involvement of the petitioner in seven cases is an indicator that once released on bail there is high probability of his committing the crime once again. Other co-accused persons have been granted bail on the ground of their juvenility. 6. Finding no merit in this bail application, it is dismissed.