JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Krishnaji Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State. This bail application has been filed by the application for bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2015 under Sections 364-A, 122-B and 342 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad. It is contended by Shri Krishnaji Khare that the applicant has been arrested in Case Crime No. 291 of 2015, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and subsequently implicated in Case Crime No. 260 of 2015, under Sections 364-A, 122-B and 342 IPC. He has further submitted that the applicant has not been named in the FIR of Case Crime No. 260 of 2015. He has been implicated in this case only on the confessional statement of a co-accused. There is no other evidence except the aforesaid confessional statement of the co-accused, against him. He next submits that co-accused Sankalp, who had been arrested along with the applicant and whose case is identical, has already been bailed out vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42576 of 2015. There is no direct role assigned to the applicant and that the abductee has stated that he is not in a position to recognize the abductors. It is also submitted that there is conflict in the first information report and in the prosecution case. At one place, it is alleged that the car of the abductee was overtaken and stopped by a Pulsar motor bike, on which the applicant was riding, dressed in police uniform. At another place, it is alleged that he was riding in a pearl white Safari, which overtook the car of the abductee and stopped it. It is lastly submitted that there is no public witness and that the case against the applicant is false and fabricated. Shri Deepak Dubey, counsel for the first informant has submitted that the case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from co-accused, Sankalp and the applicant is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Sankalp had been granted bail on the ground that he is a practising Advocate and was doing parvi for his younger brother and he has been falsely implicated. The applicant is not an Advocate and, therefore, he cannot claim parity with Sankalp. Sankalp had been granted bail on the ground that he is a practising Advocate and was doing parvi for his younger brother and he has been falsely implicated. The applicant is not an Advocate and, therefore, he cannot claim parity with Sankalp. He has further submitted that two other co-accused, namely, Chandra Mohan and Vineet Parihar have already been refused bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.04.2016 and 27.05.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 43633 of 2016 and 1666 of 2016, respectively. He has also referred to the statement of co-accused Vineet Parihar on page 72 of the paper book. He has lastly submitted that investigation agencies are colluding with the applicant. Call Detail records were not produced by the prosecution in the other bail applications of the co-accused, despite directions by the Court. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to bail. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On the question of parity with Sankalp, co-accused, who had been granted bail by this Court, I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the first informant. Perusal of the order granting bail reveals that it was contended "the applicant, who is an Advocate, was doing pairvi of his younger brother in the present case, for which the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is argued that there is nothing on record to connect the applicant with the complicity of alleged offence." It is not the applicant's case that he is an Advocate or was doing pairvi for the other co-accused. His case is, clearly distinguishable and, therefore, he is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Insofar as the submission is that there is conflict in the prosecution case, the same, in my considered opinion, is a question to be considered during trial. The fact remains that the bail applications of other co-accused, namely, Chandra Mohan and Vineet Parihar have been rejected by this Court. The co-accused, Sankalp had been granted bail on entirely different considerations. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, no good ground for granting bail to the applicant is made out. The bail application is hereby rejected.