Anticipatory bail on parity alone was refused where no fresh circumstance followed withdrawal of an earlier application.

A renewed anticipatory bail request after an earlier application had been withdrawn was not justified because no fresh circumstance was shown. Parity with co-accused who had obtained anticipatory bail was held insufficient by itself, and the fact that the application was filed directly before the HC after a change of roster did not create a basis for discretionary relief. Anticipatory bail was therefore declined and the petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the absence of any fresh circumstance after an earlier withdrawal of a similar application, despite bail having been granted to co-accused persons.

Analysis: The petition was founded on parity with co-accused who had obtained anticipatory bail. The existing application was nevertheless found to be a repeat move after the earlier anticipatory bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn. The absence of any change in circumstance, together with the fact that the present application had been filed directly before the High Court after change of roster, weighed against grant of the discretionary relief.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Repetition of an anticipatory bail request without any fresh circumstance did not justify grant of relief, even where co-accused had been enlarged on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: A renewed request for anticipatory bail, after an earlier withdrawal, is not maintainable for grant of relief in the absence of a subsequent change in circumstance, and parity with co-accused by itself is insufficient.

---