Possibility of the acquittal of the accused under life imprisonment

Accused persons stand charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 386, 347, 506(II) r/w 120B and Sec.395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/S.3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act. All the accused's were in the age range of 20-25 yrs. This is a 2012 case of kidnapping of victim Mr. XYZ for ransom of Rs.5 Crores. Victim is the onion merchants residing at Nasik. The Police recovered the ransom amount and the kidnappers even released the victim. After the release of the vicitim, the kidnappers stayed in the a small village wherein the Police traced their location and got them arrested. The session court pronounced the judgment on 23.08.2016 and the victim who has already spent 4 yrs in the jail wants to file an appeal and bail application. No previous records of the accused's were found. The Hon'ble judge at Session Court noticed that "Admittedly in the case in hand, prosecution failed to obtain previous sanction of the district Magistrate under Sec.39 of the Arms Act before filing of the chargesheet against the accused persons under the provisions of Arms Act. But the same has been obtained subsequent to filing of the charge sheet. On perusal of Exh.258 i.e. sanction order of the District Magistrate it appears that the District Magistrate accorded sanction to file charge sheet against the accused persons u/S.3/25 of the Arms Act on 20/7/2013, i.e. after filing of the chargesheet on 15/3/2013. The said sanction order itself shows that at the time of filing of the charge sheet, the said sanction order was not obtained by the IO nor the same was filed along with the chargesheet. Therefore, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Court in the above cited authorities are applicable in the case in hand and the Court did not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case against the accused persons for the offences u/S.3/25 of the Arms Act." Further, it was noticed by the Hon'ble Judge that "It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 9/1/2013 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pimpalgaon(B) the seized currency notes of Rs.5 Crores were returned to complainant on furnishing supratnama bond. However, the complainant failed to produce the said currency notes before the Court for its identification nor the prosecution produced panchanama while returning the said currency notes. Accused persons have not led any evidence in support of their defence. But their defence is that of total denial and accused No.1 stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime." Further, it was contended by the learned advocates that "On the other hand, learned Advocates for accused persons vehemently argued that the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused persons for the charge framed against them. Secondly, they vehemently argued that the conduct of the parties was not natural, witnesses are interested witnesses. Police has not produced the entries of the act done by them in the police diary as per Police Manual. The procedure adopted by PI Shelke is contrary to the provisions of law. No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The examination of victim at his house by the medical officer creates a doubt. No evidence came on record about the descripttion and denomination of the currency notes alleged to have been seized in the present crime nor same have been brought before the Court. IO carried out the investigation prior to registration of the offence. Police has received the information about cognizable offence in the midnight at 130 a.m., however, police failed to register the offence as per the provisions of law as well as the observations made in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. [LawsSC20131115], therefore, it creates a doubt, why the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the offence." Please advice me, whether BAIL can be granted to the victim and what are the chances of the Acquittal? Regards, Rizwan Shaikh