Parity is not a compelling ground for granting bail, and the burden is on the petitioner to prove that they had no knowledge of the offense and exercised due care to prevent it.

1. - The accused-petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.RC. in respect of FIR No. 30/2014-15 registered at Police Station Aabkari Kishangarh (District Ajmer) for the offences under Section 19/54, 14/54 and Section 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 The first application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn vide order dated 14.9.2015.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 Section 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 Section 439 Cr.PC. by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.06.2015 whereas another Co-ordinate Bench granted benefit of bail under Section 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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 4094 , Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & other v. Daya Ram Saroj & others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 138 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 .

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail merely because the co-accused have been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court as these orders have been passed without taking into consideration the huge quantity of the illicit liquor recovered from the vehicle of which petitioner is admittedly registered owner. It was further submitted that burden is on the petitioner to prove during the course of trial that his vehicle has been used by the co-accused for transportation of the recovered illicit liquor without his knowledge and he exercised due care that his vehicle is not used for such a purpose.

5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence collected during investigation which has been, placed on record by way of copy of the charge-sheet and also the relevant legal provisions and the case law.

6. The main ground on which the bail has been sought in favour of the petitioner is that the bail has been granted to co-accused and, therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled to be treated in the same way. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been involved in this case m