Second bail application rejected where prior denial stood on merits and parity with co-accused was held insufficient.

A second bail application was rejected because the earlier rejection had been on merits and the trial was still substantially pending. Two witnesses had already been examined, and their evidence supported the prosecution case, while injured and other material witnesses remained to be examined. The Court held that parity with co-accused is not, by itself, binding and does not justify release where the record and trial stage do not support bail. On those facts, the applicant was not entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on a second application, including on the ground of parity with co-accused and the stage of the trial.

Analysis: The applicant's earlier bail application had been rejected on merits. The trial was still in progress, two witnesses had already been examined, and the examined witnesses had supported the prosecution case. The remaining witnesses, including injured and other factual witnesses, were yet to be examined. The Court also held that parity with co-accused, by itself, was not binding.

Conclusion: Bail was not justified and the second bail application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second bail application, where the earlier rejection was on merits and the trial remains substantially pending with prosecution evidence supporting the case, parity with co-accused does not by itself warrant release on bail.

---