JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Arland Singh has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. Case No. 11/2004 Police Station Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur for offence under Section 365. 511 and 120-B I.P.C. Read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. It is alleged that or. 141.2004, one Dr. Mahesh Balani lodged a First s Information Report at Police Station Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur stating inter alia that on 13.1.2004 his son named Shray disclosed to him that two persons out of which one was his neighbour approached to him and inquired about the timing of school and the bus. He disclosed the name of the person living in neighbour as Anand Singn (petitioner). The Hindi version to is given as follows: " mlds csVs Js; us mls crk;k fd mlds ikl nks vady vk;s vkSj iwNk fd Ldwy o cl dk le; D;k gS] ,d vady iM+kSl esa jgrs gSa] ftudk uke vkuUn flag gSA " 3. On 14.1.2004, his son Shray boarded the school bus. He followed is the bus. Near Panchvi Puliya two persons on a motorcycle followed the said bus. After the bus covered some distance, the miscreants tried to stop the bus with a view to kidnap his son. As the police was keeping watch, they also arrived and caught hold the said miscreants. They disclosed their names as Anand Singh and Vikrarn Singh On search, police recovered certain articles which are normally used for kidnapping i.e. adhesive tape, handkerchief, rope, bandage, gupti and mobile phone. 4. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail application by a well reasoned order considering the seriousness of the offence and further the fact that case is still under investigation. It is contended by the learned counsel that even prima facie there is no case of kidnapping or attempt to kidnap punishable under Section 365 I.P.C. It is submitted that neither the bus was stopped nor any attempt was made to take away the son of informant. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Learned counsel has tried to over simplify the case. The unfortunate happening has been averted because of the good luck of child or family and also because of their alertness. However, it has given an alarming signal. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Learned counsel has tried to over simplify the case. The unfortunate happening has been averted because of the good luck of child or family and also because of their alertness. However, it has given an alarming signal. Prima facie, it is a case of attempt to kidnap for ransom punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. The attempt requires three important elements: (A) Specific intention to commit crime; (B) Act towards accomplishment of crime; and (C) Failure of that act. 5. The act towards accomplishment requires two things must be adopted to the things and the act must be beyond preparation. Attempt and preparation are closely related to each other. A culprit first intends to commit the offence, and then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. Attempt to commit offence is therefore can be said to began when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. 6. In the instant case the petitioner who is neighbour of the informant has inquired from his son about the timing of school and bus. In normal circumstance, there is no reason for a person to make such inquiry. In the morning he was seen following the school bus along with Vikram. They tried to to stop the bus. Though, the articles recovered can said to be of ordinary nature viz., adhesive tape, handkerchief, rope. bandage, gupti and mobile phone etc., but the possession of these articles at a time and the peculiar circumstances positively indicates that petitioner had made an attempt to kidnap Shray for ransom. The finding is recorded for the limited purpose of consideration of application for bail. It goes without saying that offence under Section 364-A I.PC. is a serious offence. The petitioner can not get benefit simply because he could not accomplish the object on account of the alertness of innocent victims. 7. In view of the aforesaid. The finding is recorded for the limited purpose of consideration of application for bail. It goes without saying that offence under Section 364-A I.PC. is a serious offence. The petitioner can not get benefit simply because he could not accomplish the object on account of the alertness of innocent victims. 7. In view of the aforesaid. I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The bail application filed on behalf of Anand Singh S/o Shag Singh stands dismissed.Bail Refused. *******