Parity can be a valid ground for granting bail if there are no differentiating facts between the petitioner and the co-accused who have already been granted bail.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. - This is a second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.24 dated 15.02.2020 registered under Sections 22, 25 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Budhlada City, District Mansa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, allegedly recovery of 900 tablets of Clovidol 100 SR was effected from the petitioner as well as co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said recovery was done from a bag, which was tied on the handle of the motorcycle, which was being driven by co-accused namely, Harsimrandeep Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said co-accused namely, Harsimrandeep Singh and another co-accused namely, Jasdeep Singh have already been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner be also granted the benefit of regular bail, especially, in view of the fact that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate as well as status report in the Court today and the same are taken on record.

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the co-accused Harsimrandeep Singh, who was driving the motorcycle has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2021 passed in CRM-M-4565 of 2021 and also that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. In the present case, co-accused namely, Harsimrandeep Singh has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CRM-M-4565 of 2021 on 23.02.2021. The said order is as under:-

"The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.24 dated 15.02.2020 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) and Sections 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act added later on, registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery of 900 tablets of Clovidol 100 SR was effected from the petitioner. There is no other case against the petitioner and he is in custody since 15.02.2020. The other co-accused, namely, Jasdeep Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2020 passed in CRM-M-13089-2020 titled as Jasdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the custody and the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner. However, on the strength of custody certificate filed in Court, he has submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner. The custody certificate is taken on record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2020 and other co-accused Jasdeep Singh has already been admitted on bail by this Court and noticing the fact that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found involved in any other case of similar nature, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail in this case.

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case without being influenced with these observations in any manner."

7. Parity cannot be denied to the petitioner unless a