A 21-year-old man has been cleared of trying to drag a boy from his bike into a car.
Following a five-day trial at Chelmsford Crown Court a jury found Daniel Duke, of Mendip Place, Melbourne, not guilty of a single charge of attempted kidnap.
The six men and six women returned their unanimous verdict in little under an hour of deliberation.
Mr Duke shook his fist in the dock while his father Nick Duke cried 'yes' from the public gallery as the verdict was returned.
The prosecution alleged that Mr Duke jumped out of a black car and pulled a 12-year-old boy from his bike shortly after 6.30pm on Monday, December 9, 2013, beside an alleyway off Mendip Place.
The court heard evidence from the boy himself explaining how his "brave" 13-year-old friend managed to grab his own legs leading to a "tug of war" between the alleged victim the assailant.
"His friend jumped off his bike and started a tug of war," said prosecutor Andrew Jackson summing up today.
"No doubt members of the jury you may think from his lawful evidence that the struggle lasted for about 11 seconds and no doubt you may think they both managed to get away and no doubt both of them leaped on their bikes and cycled, and it must have bee quickly, home."
The defendant, his girlfriend and stepmother however all claimed Mr Duke was eating dinner during the alleged offence.
Defence barrister Gareth Hughes said: "You may think it highly unlikely that Mr Duke living as he has in Mendip Place for some time, well known to those who live in Mendip Place with his girlfriend Kylie living opposite and with his mum in the house, would on his own door step attempt to kidnap a 12-year-old child."
The prosecution failed to provide either a motive for Duke's actions or any irrefutable evidence.
Defending the Crown Prosecution Services' decision to take Mr Duke to court, a CPS spokesman maintained there was sufficient evidence to take the case to court.
A trial costs approximately £1,700 in prosecution costs per day, amounting to £8,500 for five days.
The spokesman said: "This was a case where we felt there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.
"If the judge thought that the prosecution did not present a reasonable case then they could have stopped the trial after the prosecution's case on the grounds that there was no case to answer.
"They clearly felt that the defendant did have a case to answer so they let the decision be made by the jury.
"The jury have reached their decision and we respect their decision."
