Bail parity and medical grounds rejected where no change in circumstances was shown and the applicant's role differed from the co-accused.

A fourth bail application was rejected because no material change in circumstances was shown after earlier merits-based refusals. Parity with a co-accused was not accepted, as the applicant's role was found to be different from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. The medical ground also failed because jail records showed ongoing treatment, further care was available in a government hospital, and the applicant had declined surgery when offered. On these findings, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the fourth application on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, medical condition, and absence of any material change in circumstances.

Analysis: The earlier bail applications had already been rejected on merits. The claim of parity was not accepted because the applicant's role was found to be different from that of the co-accused who had been enlarged on bail. The medical plea was also declined since the jail medical report showed that treatment was being provided, further treatment was available in government hospital, and the applicant had himself declined surgery when offered. The Court found no sufficient change in circumstances to justify a fresh grant of bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail and the fourth bail application was rejected.

---