Second bail application for accused after partial witness testimony and insufficient corroboration denied; parity with co-accused not applied

The primary issue was whether the applicant merits enlargement on bail on a second application. The HC noted the first bail was earlier rejected on merits, and given that only two prosecution witnesses have testified in support while key injured and other fact-witnesses remain unexamined, the trial stage and existing corroboration were insufficient to favour bail; application dismissed. Subsidiary issue: parity with co-accused. The HC held parity is not binding where facts differ, and therefore refusal to follow co-accused's release did not oblige grant of bail to the applicant; outcome: parity disregarded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused seeking enlargement on bail during trial should be allowed or rejected.

Analysis: The applicant filed a second bail application; his earlier bail application had been rejected on merits by a detailed order. The trial is in progress with two prosecution witnesses already examined who have supported the prosecution case and additional eyewitness/injured witnesses remaining to be examined. The Court considered parity orders granting bail to co-accused but held that such parity is not binding. Given the stage of trial and the evidence on record corroborating the prosecution version, the Court found no ground to grant bail.

Conclusion: The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the applicant's prayer for enlargement on bail is refused.

---