CHAMKOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.RC. in respect of FIR No. 30/2014-15 registered at Police Station Aabkari Kishangarh (District Ajmer) for the offences under Sec. 19/54, 14/54 and Sec. 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The first application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn vide order dated 14.9.2015. It is to be noted that after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and co-accused and charge for offence under Sec. 19/54- A of the Act has been framed against the petitioner on the ground that he is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-05-W-9490 which was found to carry a huge quantity of illicit liquor without any licence or permit on 19.03.2015. It is further to be noted that co-accused-Shri Amandeep Singh was granted benefit of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.PC. by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.06.2015 whereas another Co-ordinate Bench granted benefit of bail under Sec. 439 Criminal Procedure code to co-accused-Shri Sukhvinder vide order dated 8.10.2015.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of bail has already been granted to co-accused-Shri Amandeep Singh and Shri Sukhvinder by the Co-ordinate Benches of this High Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail more particularly in view of the period of custody of the petitioner and the trial is unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable period. It was further submitted that otherwise also the case of the petitioner is on better footing in comparison to the co-accused by the reason that at the time of seizure co-accused were found in the aforesaid vehicle whereas the petitioner has been involved in the case merely because he happens to be registered owner of the vehicle. It was also submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the time of seizure of the alleged illicit liquor petitioner was not present. It was submitted that no evidence has been collected during the course of investigation to the effect that petitioner knowingly allowed his vehicle to be used for the transportation of illicit liquor and in absence of such evidence, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Yunis & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 4094 , Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & other Vs. Daya Ram Saroj & others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 138 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 .