Parity and alleged change in circumstances did not justify bail where recovery was from the applicant and his role was graver.

A second bail application based on parity and alleged change in circumstances was rejected because the recovery of the alleged bribe money was from the applicant, the record showed his knowledge and participation, and his role was graver than that of the co-accused already on bail. The filing of the charge-sheet was not treated as a fresh circumstance, since it existed when the first bail application was considered. Bail was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application deserved to be allowed on the ground of parity and alleged change in circumstances.

Analysis: The application was founded mainly on the grant of bail to co-accused persons and on the filing of the charge-sheet. The Court found that the recovery of the alleged bribe money was specifically from the applicant, that the material on record showed his knowledge and participation, and that his role was distinguishable and graver than that of the co-accused who had been enlarged on bail. The filing of the charge-sheet was held not to be a fresh circumstance because it had already existed when the first bail application was considered.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on parity or on any subsequent change of circumstance, and the second bail application was rejected.

---