Second bail plea rejected as parity with co-accused and later bail order did not create a fresh ground.

A second bail application was rejected where the first bail plea had already been refused on merits. The Court declined parity with a co-accused because the earlier refusal rested on a distinct factual situation, and the applicant had not shown willingness to deposit the additional amount referenced in the prior order. Reliance on the co-accused's later bail order did not constitute a fresh ground for release, and the material placed did not justify a different view on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application deserved to be allowed on the basis of parity with co-accused and the material placed regarding secured amount and alleged liability.

Analysis: The applicant's first bail application had already been rejected on merits. The claimed parity with co-accused was not accepted, since the record showed that the earlier refusal had proceeded on the distinct factual position then before the Court and the applicant was not ready to deposit the additional amount referred to in the earlier order. The subsequent reliance on the co-accused's bail order did not persuade the Court to take a different view, and no fresh ground sufficient to justify release on bail was made out.

Conclusion: The second bail application was rejected.

---