Rajasthan HC Grants Bail on Parity for Possession of Illicit Liquor

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused implicated solely on the basis of co-accused statements for being in possessiojn of illicit liquor in excise case where the primary offenders were already enlarged on bail.

Justice Bipin Gupta, sitting as a Single Judge Bench, presided over the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioner, sought regular bail after being arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.139/2025 at Police Station Transport Nagar, District Pali, for alleged violations of the Excises Act, 1950.

Key Takeaways

Principle of Judicial Parity

When primary co-accused with similar or more severe roles are granted bail, subsequent applicants on the same or lesser footing are entitled to equal treatment to prevent arbitrary detention.

Evidentiary Value of Co-accused Statements

Implication based solely on the statements of other accused persons, rather than direct recovery, significantly weakens the state's grounds for continued pre-trial custody.

Trial Duration and Custody Rights

In cases triable by a Magistrate where the investigation and trial are expected to be protracted, the right to liberty outweighs the necessity of incarceration pending trial.

Parity with Main Accused and Co-Accused

The petitioner's counsel argued that the main accused, Deva Ram and Ramesh Kumar, who were apprehended with the liquor, had already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench in Deva Ram and Ramesh Kumar v. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14137/2025). It was further highlighted that another co-accused, Prakash Chand, was granted bail in Prakash Chand v. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1983/2026) despite having eight pending cases against him. The counsel contended that Ganesh Kumar’s implication was based merely on statements from Deva Ram and Ramesh Kumar, and since his case stood on no lesser footing than those already released, he deserved similar relief.

The Rajasthan High Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case and considering the fact that the main accused namely Deva Ram and Ramesh Kumar have been enlarged on bail and another co-accused Prakash Chand against whom eight cases were reported to be pending of similar nature has been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and further considering the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate and only one case of similar nature is reported to be pending against the petitioner and the investigation/trial will take considerable time, hence, to maintain the parity, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.”

Ratio

The doctrine of parity must be maintained in bail matters where the petitioner is similarly situated to co-accused who have been granted relief by the same or a coordinate court, especially when the offences are triable by a Magistrate and the prosecution relies on statements of co-accused for implication rather than direct recovery.

Background

The dispute originated from F.I.R. No.139/2025 where the Rajasthan police seized liquor and arrested two individuals, Deva Ram and Ramesh Kumar. During the investigation, the duo named the petitioner, Ganesh Kumar, leading to his arrest on August 6, 2026. The petitioner’s initial bail plea was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, District Pali, on August 14, 2026.

In the Rajasthan High Court, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but could not deny that co-accused with more significant roles and criminal records had been released. Considering that the petitioner had only one prior similar case and had been in custody for over a month, the Bench allowed the application, ordering his release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11381/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:44615
Case Title: Ganesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP with Mr. O.P. Chaudhary

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 21992