The ground of parity is not available when considering bail applications, especially in cases involving the recovery of a huge commercial quantity of illegal substances.

Harsh Kumar, J.

This is the second bail application of the applicant. First Bail Application no. 19236 of 2014 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2014.

2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the co-accused Pintoo and Bheem Kumar Yadav from whom recovery of Ganja 20 Kg. each was made, have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2014 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35390 of 2014, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that from Pintoo and Bheem Kumar recovery of ganja 20 Kg. was made, while in this case from the possession of applicant apart from 300 liters country made liquor, 60 Kg. Gaanja has been recovered, which is much more than commercial quantity. It was also contended that in the case of Tarun Yadav vs. State of U.P., 2010 Criminal Law Journal 1029 it has been held by this Court that "on the ground of parity granting of bail by one judge, another is not under obligation to grant bail to another accused on the ground of parity without considering merits. He may reject bail application of co-accused as no judge is obliged to pass order against his conscience, merely to maintain consistency." that the applicant's first bail application has been dismissed on merits and he may not seek parity as the ground of parity is not available to him; that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and careful perusal of material on record and considering the case law referred above, recovery of huge commercial quantity of ganja and totality of facts and circumstances I find that the applicant is not entitled for bail and at this stage without commenting on merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail on second bail application.

6. The second bail application of applicant Kapil Chaurasiya in Case Crime No.347 of 2014, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Narahi, District Ballia is rejected.

7. However, the court concerned is directed to dispose of the trial expeditiously.