TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid 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 chargesheet 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ug charas weighing about 20 Kg. was recovered from its dicky and they were not having any valid licence or permit to possess and transport the same. It is the case of the prosecution that co-accused-Shri Ranupal was on the driver seat whereas petitioner was sitting alongwith him and both of them were arrested at the spot whereas two other occupants ran away and investigation was kept pending against them under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. Co-accused-Shri Parvej Aalam has been arrayed as an accused in this case as he happens to be registered owner of the vehicle. Thus, narcotic drug (Charas) more than commercial quantity was found in the aforesaid vehicle. 8. Section 37 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable grounds". The expression `reasonable grounds' in Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) has not been defined but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the Act. It is thus clear that there must be some material available on record to satisfy the Court that the aforesaid twin conditions are fulfilled and only then benefit of bail can be granted and reasons are to be recorded by the Court for its satisfaction. Same view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Shiv Shankar Kesri reported in 2008 Cr. L.J. 335 and Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade reported in 2004 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail. Even then the court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. Thus, the case of an accused has to be examined individually. Simply because the co-accused has been granted bail cannot be the sole criteria for granting bail to the main accused. Even at the stage of second or third bail the Court has to examine whether on facts, the case of the applicant before the Court is distinguishable from other released co-accused and the role played by the applicant is such which may disentitle him to bail. It was also held that the principle of grant of bail on parity cannot be allowed to be carried to an absurd or illogical conclusion so as to put a judge in a tight and straight jacket to grant bail automatically. There may be case which may require an exception; where a judge may not simply take a different view from the judge who granted bai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on careful scrutiny in a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the Court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances, who has been bailed out then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail. A Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains no cogent reasons or if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle of law and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail. Such an order can never form the basis for a claim of parity. It will be open to the Judge to reject the bail application of the applicant before him as no Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to maintain consistency. The grant of bail is not a mechanical act. Merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, has been released on bail earlier and State has not moved the higher Court against the order in question for cancellation, th....