The severity of the charges, the principles for granting bail, and the pending examination of linked witnesses are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 139/11 under Section 364-A/302/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in conspiracy with his associates had kidnapped one Rohit Ahlawat i.e. son of the complainant – R.R. Ahlawat, for ransom of Rs.50 lac. Later on, son of the complainant was strangulated and was killed. During the investigation it was revealed that the mobile phone of the victim – Rohit Ahlawat was being used for making the ransom call. It also came to notice that a sum of Rs.8,500/- were withdrawn from the account of the deceased. CCTV installed at the ATM regarding withdrawal of the money was seized wherein two boys were seen withdrawing cash from the ATM. On the basis of electronic surveillance, the petitioner was arrested along with other co-accused on 25.11.2011. Mobile phone used for making ransom calls by the petitioner was also recovered.

3. Status report filed on behalf of the State clearly indicates the manner in which the conspiracy of kidnapping the victim was hatched. According to the prosecution, two girls namely Fariyal and Nishu were arranged by the petitioner who lured the victim. On 22.11.2011 kidnappers called the complainant from the mobile of the victim and demanded Rs.50 lacs. It was agreed that the ransom money will be arranged at Agarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi but nobody came to collect the same. On 23.11.2011 the accused persons directed the complainant to board a bus at 8 PM from Sarai Kale Khan to Karoli, Rajasthan for delivering the ransom money in Karoli, Rajasthan. Police team followed the complainant cautiously. Since the accused persons were making contact to the complainant, their mobile phone location was traced and the raiding team apprehended the petitioner along with two other accused at Cahudhary Hotel, Bandikui, Rajasthan. On their disclosure they confessed that they kidnapped the victim and threw his dead body near Village Asgaripur, Distt. Moradabad, UP.

4. During investigation it was revealed that accused Mukesh shot Rohit on his head with a country made pistol just to ensure his death. Even after killing the victim, the accused continued calling the complainant over his mobile and demanded a ransom of Rs.50 lacs.

5. Autopsy surgeon of Civil Hospital, Moradabad, UP has given the cause of death as “Asphyxia as a result of anti mortem strangulation”. Fractures were also noticed in the skull at the time of autopsy and autopsy surgeon has also mentioned this fact in his report. Country made pistol was also recovered from the sugarcane field of Village Sarkdi Aziz, Distt. J.P. Nagar, UP. Mobile phone of the victim was also recovered from the bushes near Burja Bypass on Jaipur, Alwar Highways at the instance of accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A/394/302/201/120B/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act was filed against all the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in custody since 30.11.2011. Since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, but there is no eye witness or last seen evidence against the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, all the material witnesses have been examined but nothing incriminating against the petitioner has been found. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the bail application before the Trial Court but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the same vide order dated 05.06.2015. It is further contended that all the main prosecution witnesses have been examined and no allegation is proved against the petitioner therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail in the present case.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for th