ORDER 24.4.2003 — Heard 2. Petitioner has prayed for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in S.T. Case No. 10/149 of 2003 of the Court of Addl.Ses¬sions Judge, Nayagarh arising out of G.R. Case No. 74 of 2002 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Nayagarh. 3. Petitioner’s earlier bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court as per composite order passed on 12.12.2002 in BLAPL Nos. 1964 and 2178 of 2002. At that time, prayer of some other co-accused persons was allowed because the allegation against them stands at a different footing. In that order when the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected learned counsel for the petitioner requested that an observation may be made that petitioner shall move for bail afresh in the trial Court after commitment of the case. Therefore, this Court made such an observation with the further observation to consider such application in accordance with law and on its own merit. After commitment of the case petitioner moved for bail in the Court below on two ground, viz., (i) ground of parity on the ground that other co-accused persons have been released on bail; and (ii) this Court had directed to renew the prayer for bail after commitment. After consideration of such contention of the petitioner on 21.3.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh rejected petitioner’s prayer for bail on the ground that the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail stand in a different footing and therefore parity cannot be granted and that this Court had not passed order for release of the petition¬er on bail after the order of commitment but to consider the bail application in accordance with law. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that in view of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and in view of the rejection of his prayer for bail by the High Court on such grounds, he did not find it just and proper to allow the petitioner to go on bail. 4. In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that this Court had directed the petitioner to move for bail after order of commitment. Petitioner either deliberate¬ly or under misconception construed the observation made by this Court in such a manner. Be that as it may, the application has to be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law. 5. Petitioner either deliberate¬ly or under misconception construed the observation made by this Court in such a manner. Be that as it may, the application has to be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law. 5. The next ground advanced is that of parity. In that respect, as noted above, while considering the application for bail of the present petitioner and some of the co-accused, this Court found the gravity of the allegation against the petitioner and rejected his prayer for bail while allowing some other co-accused to go on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the meantime some more co-accused persons applied for bail in this Court and in another Bench their prayer has been allowed by granting bail and that, such persons are similarly situated with the petitioner and therefore parity should be granted to the petitioner. This Court does not find any merit in that contention, because petitioner was the abetter and the accused who committed murder is still absconding. Apart from that, a factual finding is not a ratio of binding nature. If the factum of judgment in personam and principle of parity is to be extended, then it is the order of anterior period which is to be accepted by a co-ordinate Bench. Later decision of a co-ordinate Bench with contrary finding cannot be accepted to consider the principle of parity. Be that as it may, no such particulars of the case number or the accused persons has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court also does not find this case to be a fit case for applying the principle of parity. 6. An accused has the liberty to move for bail more than once but the Court is to consider the same keeping in view the earlier order of rejection vis-a-vis the changed circumstance, if any existing. In the absence of any changed circumstance if an accused, whose bail application had earlier been rejected on merit, is allowed to go on bail on the self-same gravity of offence, then that lacks a judicial decision with due exercise of judicial discretion and that can be termed as rule of choice which norm is not only alien to the adjudicatory process but also should be scrupulously avoided. Therefore, in this case, when this Court does not find any changed circumstance, the applica¬tion for bail is not to be allowed simply because the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time. Accordingly, the application for bail does not bear any merit and the same stands rejected. Intimate the Court below. Application rejected.