Absence of change in circumstances and failure to establish parity precludes successive regular bail for alleged prime conspirator.

The applicant sought successive regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding FIR C.R. No. 11217006231090/2023 for offenses including murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and conspiracy (Sec. 120(B) IPC).

The prosecution alleged that a land dispute led to an incident where the deceased was assaulted and run over by a car.

The applicant had been in custody since March 27, 2024.

A prior bail application (No. 17234 of 2024) was dismissed by the High Court on September 6, 2024, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

The applicant moved this fresh application citing that other co-accused had been granted bail by the Sessions Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity following the release of co-accused by the Sessions Court.

2. Whether there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the grant of a successive bail application after the previous rejection was affirmed by the Apex Court.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the discretionary power to grant bail.

It relied on the principle of "Parity," which dictates that similarly situated accused should be treated equally, provided their roles and the evidence against them are comparable.

The court adhered to the principle governing "Successive Bail Applications," which requires a material change in circumstances for the court to reconsider a previously denied bail plea.

The court also considered the weight of "Motive" in establishing a prima facie case for conspiracy under Section 120(B) of the IPC.

The applicant argued for bail based on his 60-year age, two-year incarceration, and the release of co-accused on parity.

However, the Court observed that the applicant’s prior bail rejection had attained finality through the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his Special Leave Petition.

Analyzing the merits, the Court found that the applicant and his son were the owners of the disputed land, providing a "strong motive" for the crime.

Call records indicated the applicant was in frequent contact with co-accused at the scene before, during, and after the murder, suggesting he was the "main accused".

The Court distinguished the applicant's role from those released by the Sessions Court, noting that parity does not apply when the accused is attributed a primary or different role in the conspiracy.

It further held that the principle of parity was inapplicable because the applicant's role as the alleged primary conspirator differed significantly from the co-accused.

Consequently, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the application for regular bail.