ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. Brief sequence of events relevant and essential for disposal of this bail application is narrated hereinbelow. 3. 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. & 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." 4. 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. 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. 5. 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. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the co-accused Vinodgiri was granted bail on the ground that he had been in custody for a period in excess of 5 years after considering the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Thana Singh v. CBN reported in (2013)2 SCC 590 . He urged that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been in custody in the present case only for a period of 2-1/2 years because he was absconding for the remaining period and as such, the ratio of Thana Singh's judgment (supra) does not come to his aid and urged that the instant bail application should be rejected. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Allowing the bail application of the petitioner would virtually be giving him a gift for his recalcitrant conduct. Even while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2013, this Court took note of the fact that another case for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act was registered against him. The recovered contraband weighs more than commercial quantity. 7. Allowing the bail application of the petitioner would virtually be giving him a gift for his recalcitrant conduct. Even while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2013, this Court took note of the fact that another case for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act was registered against him. The recovered contraband weighs more than commercial quantity. Manifestly, as the petitioner is involved in more than one cases of narcotics, it would be virtually impossible for this Court to record the requisite satisfaction mandated by Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he would not repeat the same if released on bail. The co-accused Vinodgiri was granted bail on the ground of delay in trial and as he was incarcerated in prison for a period of more than 5 years. The petitioner, who absconded after being released on bail by this Court, is primarily responsible for causing the said delay in trial. Even otherwise, had the petitioner not absconded, in all probability, the bail granted to him would have been cancelled by this Court because warrant of arrest had been issued against him. 8. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Thana Singh (supra) and he cannot raise the ground of parity for seeking bail in this case. The conduct of the petitioner who absconded after being released on bail in this case disentitles him to indulgence of bail. 9. Consequently, the instant fourth application for bail is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.