Successive bail applications fail without changed circumstances, even where parity with co-accused was already considered.

Successive bail applications under Section 439 CrPC require a fresh change in circumstances or other new material; the third bail plea was rejected because the earlier bail application had already been dismissed by a speaking order, the challenge to that order before the Supreme Court had been withdrawn, and the only renewed ground of parity with co-accused had already been considered. No post-dismissal change was shown, so regular bail was refused, despite the fact that prosecution witnesses had not yet been examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petition was the third bail application. The earlier bail petition had been dismissed by a detailed speaking order, and the challenge to that order before the Supreme Court had also been withdrawn. The only ground urged was that co-accused had been granted bail, but that contention had already been considered and had not persuaded the Court earlier. No change in circumstances after the dismissal of the second bail petition was shown. The State also pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses had yet been examined.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to regular bail, and the petition was dismissed.

---