BRIJESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.426/2014 registered at Police Station Nagar (District Bharatpur) for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by this Court on merit by an order dated 09.03.2015 mainly looking to the quantity of narcotic drug allegedly recovered from the vehicle of which petitioner was also one of the occupant. It is to be noted that charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and co-accused-Shri Ranupal for the aforesaid offences on the premise that narcotic drug (Charas) weighing about 20 Kg. was recovered from a vehicle having registration No.UP-75-T-2990 of which both of them were occupants. As a result of investigation, it was found that at the time of recovery co-accused-Shri Ranupal was on the driver seat and petitioner was accompanying him. As per prosecution case two more persons were also occupants of the aforesaid vehicle but they ran away as soon as the vehicle was stopped by the police. It is also to be noted that registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle Shri Parvej Aalam was also made accused in this case and charge-sheet was also filed against him. It is further to be noted that benefit of bail was granted to Shri Parvej Aalam by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 31.8.2015 and the same learned Co-ordinate Bench extended benefit of bail to co-accused-Shri Ranupal also vide order dated 31.8.2015 passed in a separate bail application.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of bail has already been granted to almost similarly situated co-accused- Shri Ranupal by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled to be treated in the same manner more particularly in view of the fact that as per prosecution case co-accused-Shri Ranupal was on the driver seat of the vehicle through which the contraband was being transported from one place to another whereas the role attributed to the present petitioner is only as an occupant of that vehicle and, therefore, case of the petitioner stands on a better footing in comparison to co-accused-Shri Ranupal. It was submitted that it is well settled legal position that if an co-accused has been extended benefit of bail even by a Co-ordinate Bench, the same benefit must also be granted to the similarly situated co-accused so as to maintain consistency in the orders.