JUDGMENT

1. The applicant vide this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 170/2019 dated 16.04.2019 registered at P.S. Bawana under Sections 364A/395/397/34 IPC.

2. The applicant was formally arrested on 28.02.2020 based on a disclosure statement made in another FIR No. 01/2020 also registered at PS: Bawana under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein he has been in custody since 01.01.2020. A supplementary charge sheet has since been filed. The charges have been framed and the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned Trial Court.

3. As per FIR, the paternal uncle of the complainant, while returning in his car (Honda Amaze Dark Grey) bearing registration number DL-3CCE2452 from his factory at A-161 Sector-2, DSIIDC Bawana was abducted by 2-3 men at around 10:40 pm on 15.04.2019. They not only demanded a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- from him but also threatened to kill him in case of his failure to pay the same. Thereafter, the victim himself gave his statement on 17.04.2019 stating that he was abducted on gun point by 5 persons who took his car and also robbed him of certain valuable belongings, Rs.30,000/- and other important documents including his identity cards.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR on unfounded allegations as he was never present at the place of incident. As is evident from the FIR, it has been registered at the behest of the complainant who has only narrated the incident as told to him by the victim. He submits that he has wrongly been apprehended on the basis of a disclosure statement made in another FIR and that no incriminating evidence has been found against him to substantiate his complicity in the commission of the offence. He submits that the victim and his wife, both being material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and in any event, have since been discharged.

5. He also submits that the victim could not identify the applicant and he was identified in the TIP proceedings because the victim/witness was shown the photographs of the accused persons before conducting the TIP proceedings. In view thereof, he claims parity with co-accused Sunil, who has since been granted bail as he was also not recognised by the victim. He further submits that pendency of the other cases against the applicant cannot be a ground to reject the bail since he has not been convicted in any of those and has also been granted bail in 3 pending cases. He lastly submits that the applicant has been unduly incarcerated for almost 4 years, when the investigation in the case is already complete and the trial is already at the stage of prosecution evidence, wherein also, the material witnesses already stand discharged.

6. Notice was issued and the Status Report and the Nominal Roll was called for. As per Nominal Roll, the applicant has been in custody in the present case for almost 3 years and 5 months as on date. It is also stated that the applicant is on bail in three other FIRs. There are no previous convictions of the applicant and his overall jail conduct has been satisfactory.

7. The State in its Status Report has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that he is a habitual offender involved in 4 other FIRs involving serious offences under the Arms Act. It is stated that the voice samples of the applicant have already been sent to the FSL and result thereof is awaited. Learned APP for the State submits that one of the accused has been absconding and has already been declared as a Proclaimed Offender and if the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that the applicant may threaten and influence the witnesses since one material witness being the complainant still remains to be examined. He further states that as recorded in the supplementary chargesheet, the role of the applicant in the commission of the offence was material as it