IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43493 of 2009 NAVEEN KUMAR SINGH @ MINTU SINGH son of Shiv Dayal Singh, village- Baraitha P. S. Katra, District- Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 18.08.2010 Heard Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State on merit, after this case has been restored today by a separate order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21224 of 2010 This court after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record would however find that there are sufficient materials showing direct involvement of the petitioner in an offence u/S 392/395/412 I.P.C. This court in fact while rejecting the prayer for bail of two other co-accused namely, Ranjan Kumar and Vinita Devi in its order dated 4.12.2009 had recorded as follows:- “Out of two remaining cases, the one filed by the petitioner Vinita Devi @ Vinita Singh for an offence under Sections 392/395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, the solitary defence is that she is simply a lady and in fact, had boarded the vehicle in question and thereafter had got down from the same with her child and therefore, her implication in this case 2 wherein she was not even named in the First Information Report seems to be wholly an error on the part of investigating agency and in any event, the same being based on the confession of the co-accused would not bind her in any manner. The defence of the petitioner Ranjan Kumar on the other hand is that he has been framed in this case by the police and barring his confessional statement there is nothing against him. In the opinion of this Court, the over simplistic approach of the two petitioners would not be acceptable in view of the fact that in course of investigation, the complicity of the two petitioners have not only emerged on account of their own confessional statement but also from the surrounding circumstance as was initially given in the First Information Report by the victim lady. Their involvement in fact, seems to have been surfaced on recovery of the vehicle, mobile and the motorcycle as per their confessional statement which thus gets corroborated by way of plausible circumstances for involvement of the aforementioned two petitioners and their playing vital role in the occurrence. That being so, this Court would find that the petitioners cannot be released on bail pertaining to an offence of robbery of vehicle in broad day light which has acquired increasing notoriety in the recent times. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Vinita Devi @ Vinita Singh and Ranjan Kumar is hereby rejected with a direction to the court below, the trial court, to expedite the trial.” 3 The case of the petitioner definitely is even at a worse footing inasmuch as two things are absolutely clear. There are series of statements to show that the stolen Bolero vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to one Manoj Kumar Sah from whose possession the vehicle was recovered. Manoj Kumar Sah has also made disclosure in his statement to the police that the petitioner was the kingpin and thereafter it is the confessional statement of petitioner which being inculpatory in nature clearly binds him and prima facie establishes his involvement in the offence. In that view of the matter, this Court would not be impressed with the plea of the petitioner that another co-accused Naresh Sah has been subsequently released on bail by order dated 21.5.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 4929 of 2010 inasmuch as his involvement was based only on his confessional- statement and that too as an accomplice. There is in fact a lot of difference between the case of the petitioner and co-accused Naresh Sah. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 4 Since the petitioner is in custody since 19.7.2009, if the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded within a period of two years from the date of receipt of this order by the court below, the petitioner will have a liberty to first move the trial court which then would record its reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period and only thereafter, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)