The seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.328/09 under Section 302/201/120-B of IPC, at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi.

2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2009 at about 11.17 vide DD Entry No.16A, an information was received at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi regarding dead body found in a car at Sanjay Enclave, Opp. G.T.K. Deport. The deceased was identified as Satish Kumar Balyan. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.06.2009 at DDU Hospital and consequent upon receipt of the post mortem report No.594/2009 dated 18.06.2009, the present FIR under Section 302 of IPC was registered.

3. During the course of investigation, several statements of the concerned persons were recorded and on basis whereof the accused Jagbir Singh and Sunil Kumar were identified to be the suspects in the present case and on 30.04.2014 they were arrested, i.e. almost after five years of investigation. Charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons in July 2014. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Jagbir Singh. Accordingly, the petitioner was interrogated by the Crime Branch, Rohini, Delhi. On 20.02.2015, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and since then he is in judicial custody. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was filed against the present petitioner as well.

4. While comprehending and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the co-accused Jagbir Singh and Sunil Kumar were enlarged on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 15.10.2014. However, the bail application moved by the present petitioner was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 04.01.2016 on the ground that the proceedings under Section 82/83 have been initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the present bail application is moved on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the mere disclosure of the main accused Jagbir Singh. In fact, the petitioner was only a witness to the sale agreement dated 19.10.2007 executed between the deceased Satish and the main accused Jagbir Singh qua the office of the deceased at Sector 5, Rohini, New Delhi. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the investigation, the petitioner was interrogated by the Crime Branch, Rohini, New Delhi in relation to the present FIR but finding no connection of the petitioner to the instant case, the petitioner was set free by the concerned Crime Branch.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had been pressurized by the investigating agency and was also subjected to physical abuse and torture by the investigating agency so as to threaten the petitioner to make statement as per their desire. Not only this, the family members of the petitioner were also intimidated several times. All such mistreatment on the part of the investigating agencies were reported by the petitioner by way of representation dated March 2011, to the senior official of Police in Moradabad while forwarding a copy thereof to the Police Commissioner, Delhi, Commissioner, Crime Branch, Delhi and to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Delhi. Thereafter, no summons requisitioning the presence of the petitioner were issued by the investigating officer. It is contended that being actuated with an oblique motive of exerting illegal pressure upon the petitioner, Non-Bailable Warrants were procured against the petitioner and the investigating agency procured such reports so as to obtain declaration of the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender. When the petitioner came to