Parity in bail can justify release when a co-accused's later merits-based bail order applies to a similarly placed applicant.

Parity can justify grant of bail where a later applicant is similarly situated to a co-accused already enlarged on bail, even if an earlier bail application by another accused was rejected. The prior rejection does not create an automatic bar against reconsideration of a separate applicant's case; the decisive question is whether the facts are materially similar and whether the later bail order was passed on merits. On that basis, the High Court held the applicant entitled to bail on parity and allowed the second bail application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application deserved to be allowed on the ground of parity because a similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail after the applicant's earlier bail application had been rejected.

Analysis: A prior rejection of bail to one accused does not create an automatic bar against a later bail application by another co-accused who was not a party to that earlier consideration. The relevant question is whether the applicant's case is materially similar to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail. If the later bail order was passed on merits and the cases are not distinguishable on facts, parity may justify similar treatment even if another co-accused's earlier application had been rejected.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail on parity, and the second bail application was allowed.

---