JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The accused-petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.426/2014 registered at Police Station Nagar (District Bharatpur) for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by this Court on merit by an order dated 09.03.2015 mainly looking to the quantity of narcotic drug allegedly recovered from the vehicle of which petitioner was also one of the occupant. It is to be noted that charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and co-accused-Shri Ranupal for the aforesaid 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 charge-sheet 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. 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 petitioner is also entitled to be treated in the same manner more particularly in view of the fact that as per prosecution case co-accused-Shri Ranupal was on the driver seat of the vehicle through which the contraband was being transported from one place to another whereas the role attributed to the present petitioner is only as an occupant of that vehicle and, therefore, case of the petitioner stands on a better footing in comparison to co-accused-Shri Ranupal. It was submitted that it is well settled legal position that if an co-accused has been extended benefit of bail even by a Co-ordinate Bench, the same benefit must also be granted to the similarly situated co-accused so as to maintain consistency in the orders. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Nanha Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 938 (Allahabad High Court), Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1993 (1) RLR 335 (Rajasthan High Court), Khoobi Ram Vs. State reported in 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 166, (2009) 5 SCC 283 and Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 181. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail merely because the co-accused has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench as the order of bail in favour of co-accused has been passed without taking into consideration the quantity of the narcotic drug (Charas) which is far more than the commercial quantity. It was further submitted that benefit of bail has been extended to co-accused-Shri Ranupal overlooking the provisions of Section 37 of the Act which bars grant of bail even under Section 439 Cr.P.C. if the quantity of narcotic drug is commercial quantity. 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. As per evidence collected during the course of investigation, which has now taken the shape of charge-sheet, the petitioner and co-accused-Shri Ranupal and two other persons were found in occupation of the aforesaid vehicle when it was intercepted by the police and on search being made narcotic drug 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. 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. 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 of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is thus clear that in the cases involving commercial quantity of a narcotic drug benefit of bail can be extended to the accused only when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the case of Ratan Kumar Vishwas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 482 , a Bench of three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to deal with the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that a person accused of offence under the Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 that there are reasonable grounds for holding that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. Thus, according to Hon'ble Court in absence of the aforesaid satisfaction of the Court in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substances benefit of bail cannot be extended to the accused. In the case of Union of India Vs. Ratan Malik alias Habul reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. It was further held that it is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the Act and subsection (2) thereof that the powers to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The conditions are 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. 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 Cr.L.J.1815 and several other cases. It is thus well settled legal position that if an accused deals with a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance involving commercial quantity benefit of bail cannot be granted to him unless on the basis of material available on record the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37 of the Act are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Court and reasons are specifically required to be recorded to extend such benefit. In the case of Yunis & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (supra), learned Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the law of parity is a desirable rule. In matter of release of bail to the co-accused 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. A Single Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mumtaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 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. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chander alias Chandra Vs. State of U.P. 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. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chander alias Chandra Vs. State of U.P. 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 principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail. In the case of Nanha Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993 Cr.L.J.938, another Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the 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 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 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. There may be case 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. In the case of Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was held by the learned Division Bench that as far as possible parity must be maintained if the cases are identical or the matter arises out of the same facts as different judgments in the same case or identical cases lead to a situation which is known as “glorious uncertainty” as the phrase used by their Lordship of the Supreme Court. We may not be mistaken as given remarks for any individual learned brother Judge but we intend to make an observation with all respects that as far as possible if one Bench has passed an order, a contrary order should not be passed by another learned Judge and in case be chooses to differ a reference in that respect may be made to larger Bench. Inconsistent decisions or different views in the matter of admissions or otherwise lead to several misgivings to the litigating public and the lawyers. Predictability and certainty of decisions are matters of eminent public importance. In the case of Kishan Singh Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav reported in 2005 AIR SCW 536, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the judicial principle requires that the uniformity and parity should be normally observed and the earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches or the larger Benches must be followed, otherwise there would be uncertainty in justice delivery system and forum hunting, which would not be in the interest of the society at large and the institution itself. 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 of 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. 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 of 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. 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. It is also well settled legal position that a decision rendered overlooking or in ignorance or without taking into consideration a statutory provision shall be treated as per incurium and can not be regarded as a binding precedent. In the present case, a commercial quantity to the extent of about 20 Kg. It is also well settled legal position that a decision rendered overlooking or in ignorance or without taking into consideration a statutory provision shall be treated as per incurium and can not be regarded as a binding precedent. In the present case, a commercial quantity to the extent of about 20 Kg. of narcotic drug (Charas) was found to be carried in a vehicle of which the petitioner was also one of the occupant. The order by which benefit of bail has been granted to co-accused-Shri Ranupal does not indicate that while granting bail to him Section 37 of the Act was taken into consideration and learned Co-ordinate Bench was satisfied from the material available on record that the twin conditions contemplated in the aforesaid provision are satisfied. In my view as per the requirement of Section 37 of the Act burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged and that he is not likely to commit any offence if benefit of bail is extended to him but no material has been placed on record for the fulfillment of these conditions. I am of the considered view that principle of parity cannot be applied in a case in which an order has been passed in favour of a similarly situated co-accused if the same has been passed overlooking the relevant provision of law. 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. Consequently, the second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, dismissed.