Parity in bail is unavailable where the applicant’s role materially exceeds that of the bailed co-accused.

The applicant was arrested on 20 December 2023 in connection with an offence involving the alleged manufacture, possession, and sale of mephedrone.

A police raid at the applicant’s hotel resulted in the recovery of 96.18 grams of mephedrone—described as a commercial quantity—from co-accused persons occupying rooms at the hotel.

The applicant’s earlier regular-bail application, Criminal Misc. Application No. 17044 of 2024, was dismissed by the High Court on 4 September 2024.

His Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8719 of 2025 was not entertained by the Supreme Court, which directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within two years from 17 July 2025.

In the present successive bail application, the applicant relied on prolonged incarceration of more than two and a half years and claimed parity with co-accused Shaileshbhai Bhagwanbhai Mangukiya, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 17 July 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to successive regular bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration after his earlier bail application had been rejected and the rejection had been upheld by the Supreme Court?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Shaileshbhai Bhagwanbhai Mangukiya?

The Court applied the principles governing successive bail applications, namely that a subsequent application must disclose a material change in circumstances or a legally relevant new ground after rejection of the earlier application.

It also applied the doctrine of parity, under which bail may be granted to a co-accused only where the applicant’s role and circumstances are substantially comparable to those of the accused who received bail.

The Court found that the earlier rejection of bail was based on specific prima facie findings that the applicant, as hotel owner, knew that the co-accused were dealing in contraband and nevertheless allowed them to occupy the premises and conduct illegal transactions there.

The Supreme Court had subsequently declined to interfere with that decision and had only directed expeditious completion of the trial; therefore, the prior findings remained undisturbed.

The Court rejected the parity argument because the co-accused, Shailesh Mangukiya, was merely a hotel manager, whereas the applicant was the owner of the hotel.

The difference in status and the distinct role attributed to the applicant meant that the two accused were not similarly situated.

The application for regular bail was accordingly dismissed.