JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.RC. in respect of FIR No. 30/2014-15 registered at Police Station Aabkari Kishangarh (District Ajmer) for the offences under Section 19/54, 14/54 and Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The first application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn vide order dated 14.9.2015. It is to be noted that after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and co-accused and charge for offence under Section 19/54- A of the Act has been framed against the petitioner on the ground that he is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-05-W-9490 which was found to carry a huge quantity of illicit liquor without any licence or permit on 19.03.2015. It is further to be noted that co-accused-Shri Amandeep Singh was granted benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.06.2015 whereas another Co-ordinate Bench granted benefit of bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure code to co-accused-Shri Sukhvinder vide order dated 8.10.2015. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of bail has already been granted to co-accused-Shri Amandeep Singh and Shri Sukhvinder by the Co-ordinate Benches of this High Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail more particularly in view of the period of custody of the petitioner and the trial is unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable period. It was further submitted that otherwise also the case of the petitioner is on better footing in comparison to the co-accused by the reason that at the time of seizure co-accused were found in the aforesaid vehicle whereas the petitioner has been involved in the case merely because he happens to be registered owner of the vehicle. It was also submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the time of seizure of the alleged illicit liquor petitioner was not present. It was submitted that no evidence has been collected during the course of investigation to the effect that petitioner knowingly allowed his vehicle to be used for the transportation of illicit liquor and in absence of such evidence, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 3. It was submitted that no evidence has been collected during the course of investigation to the effect that petitioner knowingly allowed his vehicle to be used for the transportation of illicit liquor and in absence of such evidence, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Yunis & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 4094 , Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & other v. Daya Ram Saroj & others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 138 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail merely because the co-accused have been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court as these orders have been passed without taking into consideration the huge quantity of the illicit liquor recovered from the vehicle of which petitioner is admittedly registered owner. It was further submitted that burden is on the petitioner to prove during the course of trial that his vehicle has been used by the co-accused for transportation of the recovered illicit liquor without his knowledge and he exercised due care that his vehicle is not used for such a purpose. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence collected during investigation which has been, placed on record by way of copy of the charge-sheet and also the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 6. The main ground on which the bail has been sought in favour of the petitioner is that the bail has been granted to co-accused and, therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled to be treated in the same way. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been involved in this case merely because he happens to be registered owner of the vehicle which was found to carry a huge quantity of illicit liquor. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been involved in this case merely because he happens to be registered owner of the vehicle which was found to carry a huge quantity of illicit liquor. 7. Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act provides that where any animal, cart, vessel, raft, motor vehicle or any other means of conveyance is used in the commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof, except in case of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance being owned by the Central Government or any State Government or any of their undertaking, shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he satisfies the Court that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence. 8. As per this provision the owner of a motor vehicle shall be presumed to have committed an offence under the provisions of the Act if his vehicle is found in transportation of illicit liquor without any valid licence or permit issued under the provisions of the Act and he shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he himself has committed the offence and burden is upon him to satisfy the Court that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence. Presently, no material has been produced on record on behalf of the petitioner to discharge the burden which has been imposed upon him under this provision. The petitioner would get opportunity during the course of trial to rebut the presumption which is likely to be raised against him. In view of the above, it cannot be accepted that the case of the petitioner is on better footing in comparison to the co-accused to whom benefit of bail has been granted. 9. In the case of Yunis & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), learned Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the law of parity is a desirable rule. 9. In the case of Yunis & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), learned Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the law of parity is a desirable rule. In matter of release on bail to the co-accused it may be applied where the case of the co-accused is identically similar, but cannot be applied for rejecting the bail application of co-accused. A co-accused cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that the bail of another accused has been rejected by the Court earlier, the obvious reason being that while the earlier bail order denying bail to another co-accused was passed, the latter co-accused applying for bail was not heard. 10. A Single Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mumtaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 4497 has held that the parity is not a compelling ground to grant bail. In this case Hon'ble Single Bench refused to grant bail to accused-Shri Mumtaj merely on the ground that benefit of bail has been granted to a similarly situated co-accused. 11. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chander alias Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1998 Cr.L.J. 2374 , has held that if the order granting bail to an accused is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis of granting bail to an accused on the ground of parity. It was further held that 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 reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail. 12. In the case of Nanha v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 938 , another Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that parity cannot be sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent 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 strait-jacket to grant bail automatically. There may be cases which may require an exception; where a judge may not simply take a different view from the judge who granted bail earlier to a co-accused but where the conscience of the judge revolts in granting bail. In such a situation the judge may choose to depart from the rule recording his reasons. However, such cases would be very few. 13. The well settled legal position appears to be that parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration on the question of bail. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. Even at the stage of subsequent bail application when the bail application of the co-accused whose bail had been earlier rejected is allowed and co-accused is released on bail, even then also 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. 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. 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, the power of the Court cannot be fettered to act against conscience. 14. In the present case, a huge quantity of illicit liquor was found to be carried in a vehicle of which the petitioner is the registered owner. The orders by which the benefit of bail have been granted to the co-accused do not indicate that while granting bail to them this relevant fact was really taken into consideration. As per Section 54-A of the Act, burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the Court that his vehicle was used without his knowledge and he exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of the offence for which the charge-sheet has been filed. 15. In view of the above, I do not find it a fit case in which benefit of bail is to be granted to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings. 16. Consequently, the second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.RC. is, hereby, dismissed *******