As per case facts, applicant Prakash Kumar sought bail in a criminal case involving the death of one person and injuries to others during a dispute. He was implicated through ... alleged disclosures by co-accused and a recovery based on his own statement. He argued innocence, absence of criminal history, completion of investigation, and the dismissal of his prior bail application by a lower court. The question arose whether he should be granted bail, considering the nature of the evidence against him and the principle of parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. Finally, the High Court granted bail, stating that disclosures made by co-accused against him were inadmissible in evidence and the recovery linked to his statement was insufficient to deny bail. The court also applied the principle of parity, noting that his co-accused was already released on bail, and concluded that prolonged judicial custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, especially given the anticipated length of the trial.