The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, including the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.263/2020 dated 07.10.2020 registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 364A/120B/34 IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to this bail application are as follows:

a) The complaint was filed by one Mrs. Laxmi stating that her husband, Mukesh Kumar (Victim), who had left to attend a meeting has been abducted by some unknown persons on 06.10.2020 when he had gone for business meeting near INA, Delhi. She stated that on 06.10.2020, at about 3:15 PM, she received a call from her husband who told her that he is in Bulandshahar, UP and asked her to arrange Rs.1-2 Lakh and if cash was not available he asked her to arrange some jewellery of the same value. It is stated that the victim told the complainant to deliver the cash/jewellery along with the cheque book of the victim to a person, namely Pankaj Goyal (petitioner herein), having mobile No.8800966272, near Shahdara Metro Station. It is stated that the daughter of the victim took the cash/jewellery and the cheque book of the victim and delivered it to the petitioner herein. It is stated that on the very same day, the complainant received another call from her husband who told her to arrange Rs.3-4 Lakh more and told her that only then the kidnappers will release him. On the said complaint, FIR No.263/2020 dated 07.10.2020, was registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 364A/120B/34 IPC.

b) On investigation the victim was found and rescued from H.No.l3, Gali No.l, Nandan Nagar, Transport Nagar, Meerut, U.P., on the evening of 07.10.2020. Accused Nitin Kansal was arrested. The said Nitin Kansal disclosed that his associate, namely the petitioner herein has received the ransom from the daughter of the victim. He also disclosed that the petitioner resides at 104G, Gali No. 10, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 08.10.2020. The jewellery and the cheque book of the victim was recovered from his possession. The petitioner disclosed that he received the jewellery and the cheque book from the daughter of the victim on the directions of his associate Nitin Kansal and got the jewellery valued and sent the photographs of the jewellery to Nitin Kansal. The petitioner refused to participate in the TIP proceedings but he was identified by the daughter of the victim. During investigation the mobile phone of Nitin Kansal was seized and analyzed. During the analysis, some videos and photographs of the victim with an unknown lady were found, some videos were found in which the victim is seen sitting on the ground and some persons are beating him. Whatsapp chat with the petitioner was also found which contained two photographs of the jewellery which were sent by the petitioner to Nitin Kansal. Mobile phone of the petitioner was also seized which contained photographs of the ransom jewellery.

c) The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C wherein he disclosed that he works as a commission agent with Amory Cosmetics. He disclosed that Nitin Kansal is a distributor in the said company. He disclosed that Nitin Kansal got the distributorship of the company through him in 2019. It is stated by the victim that in September, 2020 Nitin Kansal told him that items worth Rs.10-15 Lakhs, that he purchased from the Amory Cosmetics, are lying in his godown. It is stated by the victim that Nitin Kansal told him to pay the amount and take back those items. It is stated that on 11.09.2020, the victim along with Nitin Kansal went to the office of the company at Zirakpur where the issue was discussed with the company Director. It is stated that on that day they stayed at a hotel in Zirakpur, where Nitin Kansal called a girl and fraudulently took his photographs with her. It is stated that after that day Nitin Kansal called the victim many times and asked him to come to Meerut but the victim refused. It is stated that one person, Vivek called