Bail parity and absence of changed circumstances controlled relief: one appellant was denied bail, the other was granted bail.

In bail matters, absence of any fresh change in circumstances can justify refusal where the accused remains linked to the alleged criminal activity. Appellant No. 1 was denied bail because the earlier rejection had already noted his alleged contact with the Naxalite commander and role in supplying materials, and no new circumstance was shown to warrant reconsideration. Bail was also refused on the ground that his case was not shown to be comparable to the co-accused who had obtained Supreme Court bail. Appellant No. 2 was treated as similarly placed to that co-accused, so the order was modified and bail was granted on stated conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether appellant No. 1 was entitled to bail in the absence of any change in circumstances from the earlier rejection and in light of the material attributed to him; (ii) Whether appellant No. 2 was entitled to bail on parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Issue (i): Whether appellant No. 1 was entitled to bail in the absence of any change in circumstances from the earlier rejection and in light of the material attributed to him.

Analysis: The earlier order rejecting bail had already noticed the role attributed to appellant No. 1 as being in contact with the alleged Naxalite commander and connected with supply of materials. No fresh circumstance was shown to justify a different view. The Court also noted that the case was not demonstrated to be similar to the co-accused who had obtained bail from the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: Bail to appellant No. 1 was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether appellant No. 2 was entitled to bail on parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The Court treated appellant No. 2's case as similar to that of the co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. On that parity, the impugned order was set aside insofar as it concerned appellant No. 2, and bail was directed on stated conditions.

Conclusion: Bail to appellant No. 2 was granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only for appellant No. 2, while appellant No. 1 remained in custody; the order was thus modified to the extent of granting bail to one appellant and refusing it to the other.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters, parity with a similarly placed co-accused and absence of fresh change in circumstances are decisive considerations for granting or refusing relief.

---