Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and the challan papers. 2. The allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are that they kidnapped a minor boy of five years, namely Hitesh S/o Mishri Lal and demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lac. the child was kidnapped by Azad and Prakash, to whom one Kanti lal happended to see them while taking away the child. The child was taken to Falna. At Falna, one Mahendra S/o Chunni Lal, Meena D/o Chunni Lal, Sushila and Shakila have seen the present petitioner alongwith co-accused Azad taking away the child Hitesh on a motorcycle. Azad demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lac through a telephone from telephone booth. There is evidence of one Prabhu Lal, who happened to hear the conversation of Azad. The present petitioner and Sanwla Ram were talking that they would kidnap a child and demand a ransom by which they could earn money. These material witnesses have so far not been examined. The witnesses Nainmal and Kanti Lal have been examined but Kantilal did not support the prosecution case and Nainmal failed to disclose the names of kidnappers, though he stated that the child was being taken in between two persons on a motorcycle. 3. It is contended that co-accused Prakash has been granted bail. While considering the case of co-accused Prakash, the statement of PW. 1 Kantilal was shown and since he did nst support the prosecution case, the bail applicaftion of Prakash as allowed. No other evidence was shown by the Public Prosecutor has placed the entire record of the case and the statement of various witnesses referred above. Moreso, so far as co-accused Prakash is concerned, both the witnesses, i.e. Pw.1 Kantilal and Pw.2 Nainmal did not name him in their statement recorded by the Court, whereas so far present petitioner and co-accused Azad are concerned, various witnesses referred above have named them as kidnappers of the minor boy Hitesh and they are witnessed to the effect that the boy was taken on a motorcycle by the petitioner and co-accused Azad to Falna and in the area of Falna town. 4. Be that at it may, there are certain material witnesses involving the present petitioner in the commission of the crime. 5. 4. Be that at it may, there are certain material witnesses involving the present petitioner in the commission of the crime. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to allow the bail application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC is rejected