SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Brief sequence of events relevant and essential for disposal of this bail application is narrated hereinbelow. An F.I.R. No.150/2012 came to be registered at the P.S. Mangalwad, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 8 / 15 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act with an allegation that the petitioner and the co-accused Vinodgiri were found travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.RJ06-UA-4792 in which, contraband poppy straw weighing 247 kgs. and 600 gms. was being transported. The petitioner was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2013. Whilst the said bail order was in force, the co-accused Vinodgiri too moved an application seeking bail on the ground of parity. This Court, made the following observations while deciding the Bail Application No.2483/2013 filed on behalf of Vinodgiri vide order dated 8.5.2014: "Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for bail on the ground that co-accused Daya Ram has been released on bail. A perusal of the order granting bail to Daya Ram shows that he was granted bail on the ground that there was no call detail between him and the occupants of the vehicle carrying the alleged contraband. However, on 10.07.2013, learned counsel for the State pointed out that wrong information had been provided to this Court. In fact, there was call details between Daya Ram, present petitioner and Sakir Hussein who was occupant of the vehicle, from which the recovery has been effected. In view of the said information, this Court directed to send notice to Daya Ram as to why his bail should not be cancelled. It is pointed out that the service upon Daya Ram could not be affected as he has gone to Karnataka. He is absconding and is not even appearing before the trial court. Accordingly, non- bailable warrant has been issued against Daya Ram."
(2.) A suo moto Bail Cancellation Application No.36/2013 was registered against the petitioner herein on the directions of the Bench which granted bail to the petitioner. However, even before the said application could be decided, the petitioner jumped bail before the trial court and owing to the forfeiture of his bail bonds, the said Bail Cancellation Application was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 5.10.2015. The petitioner who was re-arrested after nearly 2 1/2 years of having absconded, again applied for grant of bail by filing Bail Application No.2630/2016, which was rejected by this Court on 30.5.2016. The second bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 5.10.2016 and the third one was dismissed on 6.7.2017. Now the petitioner has moved this fourth application for bail on the purported ground that the co-accused Vinodgiri, who too was sitting in the offending vehicle with the petitioner, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2017 and hence, the petitioner too deserves to be released on bail.
(3.) Shri Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner is entitled to indulgence of bail on parity and implored the Court to accept the instant fourth bail application.;