Second bail application requires changed circumstances; active role in offence and lack of parity justified rejection.

A second bail application was refused after an earlier rejection on merits and dismissal of the SLP, because the record showed no sufficient change in circumstances and continued allegations of the applicant's active involvement in the offence. The Court considered the prosecution version, charge-sheet, sanction for prosecution, search and seizure material, and the alleged role in the conspiracy and raid. A comparison with the co-accused's bail did not establish parity, as the applicant's position was not found to be the same. The application was therefore rejected, reflecting the principle that repeated bail requests will not succeed without a material basis to depart from the earlier refusal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second application for regular bail was liable to be allowed despite the prior rejection of bail, dismissal of the SLP, and the alleged active role attributed to the applicant in the offence.

Analysis: The application was considered as a second bail request after earlier rejection on merits and dismissal of the SLP. The material on record, including the prosecution version, the charge-sheet, the sanction for prosecution, the search and seizure proceedings, and the allegation of the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy and raid, was taken into account. The distinction drawn between the applicant's role and the bail granted to a co-accused did not persuade the Court to hold that the applicant's case stood on the same footing. No sufficient or compelling ground was found to justify release on bail.

Conclusion: The second bail application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A second bail application will not be allowed where the record reflects active involvement in the offence and no sufficient change in circumstances is shown to warrant departure from the earlier refusal of bail.

---