Bail parity principle applied where the accused's role matched a co-accused already granted bail.

Parity in bail can justify enlargement where the accused's attributed role is comparable to that of a co-accused already on bail. The Court compared the appellant's alleged role in the counter affidavit with the co-accused's role and found them similarly situated for bail purposes. On that basis, the appellant was entitled to bail on the same terms and conditions, and was directed to be released after completion of bail formalities before the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on parity with a co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail.

Analysis: The Court noted the role attributed to the appellant in the counter affidavit and compared it with the role ascribed to the co-accused. In view of the bail already granted to the co-accused, the Court found that the appellant was similarly situated for the purpose of bail relief and was entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same terms and conditions.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail on parity with the co-accused, on the same terms and conditions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released on bail, with the bail formalities to be completed before the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the role attributed to an accused is comparable to that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail, parity can justify enlargement on bail on identical terms and conditions.

---