Yes, he can get the bail but for best advise mentioned all the details of FIR

1.This case is surely not handled properly.

2. The person is not a principal accused person and only he can be termed as accomplice.

3. I am sure the charge sheet is filed.

4. Now apply for bail in High Court. He would certainly get relief thereform

1) it is a settled law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception as a presumably innocent person must have the liberty to prove his innocence...”

2) the personal liberty of a person is too precious. while deciding the bail application, a judge needs to follow the basic principles of law rather than what he thinks personally. Bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment to an accused. While conisdering bail a judge needs to see that the evidence before him puts such a dark picture of the accused that if he is given bail, he will flee for the rest of his life rather than spending rest of his life in jail...”

3) the court needs to consider three factors which are 1st Charge on the accused, 2nd Nature of the evidence against the accused and 3rd Punishments prescribed in law. Accordingly a bail can not be denied for punitive purposes.

4) if bail is denied by lower courts move sessions court against tehsil court orders

That it was given in good faith without knowing that it would be used in the commission of offence by the abductor has to be proved by him in the court. Whether he is entitled to bail or not has to be decided having regard to the manner which the crime took place apart from other facts emanating from the FIR. He has the right to move High Court and finally SC for bail if his successive bail petitions have suffered rejection in the lower courts.

If the charge sheet is filed he can very well be enlarged on bail.

Bail is a legally enforceable promise to turn up to court to face charges.

It is a right that is subject to justifiable limitations, it is a right that can be taken away from certain people or in certain circumstances, but it is a right. It’s not an indulgence or privilege granted by Parliament to the grateful masses, but a tangible manifestation of the presumption of innocence.

Some people are entitled to bail as of right. If the offence you’re charged with isn’t punishable by imprisonment you are entitled to bail (generally you couldn’t even be arrested).

Unless you’ve got a prior conviction for an offence that could have been punished by imprisonment, you are also automatically entitled to bail if the offence you’re charged with carries a maximum sentence of less than three years.

In most of the cases, bail has been granted but the accused remains in custody either because he is unable to show property or savings for the bail bond, or because the police have not been able to verify his correct address for his release on a personal bond.

As per rulings of the Supreme Court, those who have spent more time in jail as undertrials than the maximum sentence for the crime they are charged with should be granted bail. As this case shows, granting bail can often become meaningless if the accused does not have the means to come up with the bail amount. We, therefore, suggest that in such cases bail should be given without any surety. The accused should then be told that if he or she absents himself from future hearings of the case, guilt will be presumed and he or she will be convicted as charged. Since the maximum possible punishment has anyway been extracted, the prosecution and society lose nothing if the person absconds. So why insist on surety?