Parity in bail can support release of identically placed co-accused, with consistency and equity favouring similar treatment.

Where accused persons are identically placed, parity and consistency can justify grant of bail, and an earlier rejection of bail for one accused does not bar consideration of bail for another accused whose case was not previously heard. The court treated the co-accused's earlier bail order as a reasoned order and held that similar treatment was warranted on equitable grounds. Bail was therefore granted to the accused-applicants, with release directed on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused-applicants were entitled to bail on the basis of parity with co-accused who had already been released on bail.

Analysis: Bail was considered in the context of earlier orders granting bail to similarly placed co-accused and the principle that parity may justify release where the cases are identically similar. The reasoning also noted that rejection of bail to one accused does not by itself bar consideration of bail for another accused who was not heard earlier. The earlier bail order in favour of a co-accused was treated as a reasoned order and not as one passed in flagrant disregard of settled principles, and the Court accepted that consistency and equity supported similar treatment.

Conclusion: The accused-applicants were entitled to bail and were directed to be released on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused-applicants on the basis of parity with co-accused and the application was finally allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where co-accused are identically placed, parity and consistency may justify grant of bail, and prior rejection of bail to another accused does not preclude bail to an accused whose case was not earlier considered.

---