JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Mannumal was enlarged on bail more so when the liquor was recovered from his possession. In view of the above, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail more so when he was not found on the spot and otherwise the trial court was under an obligation to maintain parity between the co-accused having almost similar allegation. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner could not be arrested on the spot because he ran away from that place, hence, his case is not on better footing than the co-accused. 4. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find that co-accused was found on the spot was thereafter bailed out by the trial court, thus looking to the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, the bail application is accepted and I consider it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner namely, Monu @ Yogesh s/o Mannumal on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 07/08-09 registered at Police Station Aabkari, Mansarowar, Jaipur City for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Aabkari Act provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. It is, however, made clear that during the period of bail, if the petitioner found committing similar type of offence or any other, then the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order. *******