Successive bail applications: parity alone is insufficient without a legally relevant change in circumstances or comparable facts.

Successive bail applications under Section 439 CrPC were rejected where the applicants relied on parity, alleged weakness in medical evidence, and claimed change in circumstances. The Court held that parity was unavailable because the co-accused had been granted bail on distinct medical and age-related grounds, not on a comparable factual basis. It also held that disputed questions about whether primary evidence had been adduced and whether the medical testimony proved fracture could not be conclusively examined at the bail stage, as those matters belonged to trial. As the trial was progressing and no legally relevant change in circumstances was shown, reconsideration of bail was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants, in their second and third bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity, alleged weakness in the medical evidence, and claimed change in circumstances.

Analysis: The applicants sought bail by disputing the medical basis for adding the graver offence and by relying on the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Court held that the co-accused had been enlarged on bail on distinct medical and age-related grounds, and the applicants could not claim parity on that basis. It further held that the question whether the primary evidence had been adduced and whether the medical testimony established fracture could not be finally examined at the bail stage, as such matters lay within the trial Court's domain. The Court also noted that the trial was progressing satisfactorily and that 11 witnesses had already been examined, while the injured witness was yet to be examined.

Conclusion: No change in circumstances was made out for reconsideration of bail, and both bail applications were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in successive applications will not be granted on parity alone unless the applicant shows a legally relevant change in circumstances or a comparable factual basis to the co-accused, and disputed evidentiary questions are ordinarily left to trial.

---