Grant of regular bail: parity with co-accused required; similar allegations merit equal treatment and release on bail.

Grant of regular bail where allegations against an applicant are substantially similar to co-accused requires parity in treatment; unexplained divergent bail orders amount to inconsistent exercise of judicial discretion, and equivalent treatment should be afforded. The principle of consistent reasoning in bail decisions is affirmed, resulting in direction for release on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court where co-accused on similar allegations have been granted bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite an earlier rejection by the same Judge, where co-accused facing substantially similar allegations have been granted bail.

Analysis: The petition challenged the impugned order which rejected the petitioner's bail application solely on the ground that an earlier application by the petitioner before the same Judge had been rejected. Two co-accused with almost identical allegations had been granted regular bail by separate orders. The reasoning in the impugned order did not explain why the petitioner should receive different treatment despite the similarity of allegations and prior grants of bail to co-accused. Applying the principle of parity with co-accused and taking into account the nature and similarity of the allegations, the petitioner was found entitled to the same relief as the co-accused.

Conclusion: The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 259/2022, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

---