JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated for kidnapping the son of the first informant with a demand of ransom and causing his death; that the applicant is a graduate and is preparing for competitions; that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; that dead body of the deceased has been recovered nearby place of the railway line on next day of lodging of the F.I.R.; that death of the deceased appears to have taken place due to accidental injuries sustained in an accident; that the applicant did not kidnap the deceased and did not make any demand of ransom and did not cause his death; that the recovery of mobile phone from the applicant is false and the applicant has no concerned with the call details collected by the Investigating Officer; that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 27.2.2014. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that an innocent boy of class III aged about 11 years was kidnapped by the applicant who is unemployed graduate and is involved in crimes of similar nature; that the applicant in a planned manner in collusion with co-accused Pankaj Sahu had kidnapped the innocent son of the first informant and made a demand of three lacs as ransom; that the applicant and co-accused Pankaj Sahu were traced out on the basis of call details; that two mobile phones were recovered from the applicant and one dual sims mobile was recovered from co-accused Pankaj Sahu; that bail application of the co-accused Pankaj Sahu has been rejected on merits by another Bench of this Court; that there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and body was thrown near railway track so that it may be presumed as an accidental case. 4. 4. Upon hearing the counsel and perusal of record as well as considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well totality of facts and circumstances in this case, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. 5. The bail application of Abhishek @ Guddu Vishwakarma in Case Crime No. 92 of 2014, under Sections 364Ka, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi is rejected accordingly.