Parity in bail denied where the accused had a more serious role, direct bribery involvement, and recovery of tainted money.

Regular bail was refused where the accused's role was found to be distinct and more serious than that of the co-accused. The court held that parity could not be claimed because the allegations showed direct involvement in creating fear of official action, introducing the complainant to the co-accused, and actively participating in the demand and receipt of tainted money. Recovery of bribe money from the accused further distinguished his position from the co-accused, who had been granted bail on a different footing. The bail application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail, including on the ground of parity with co-accused.

Analysis: The petitioner's role was found to be distinct and more serious than that of the co-accused. He was alleged to have been the complainant's former clearing agent, to have created fear of DRI and COFEPOSA action, to have introduced the complainant to the co-accused, and to have actively participated in the demand and receipt of tainted money. The Court held that the co-accused had been granted bail on a different footing and that the petitioner could not claim parity where the allegations against him showed direct involvement, recovery of bribe money from him, and a substantial role in the alleged conspiracy.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity in bail cannot be claimed where the accused has a distinct and more serious role in the offence, including direct participation in the demand or receipt of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money from him.

---