IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39038 of 2010 UPENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In a robbery Rs. 4,000/-, A.T.M. and Mobile was robbed by unknown miscreants. A mobile allegedly seized in the case presented by one Brajesh Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar. He states the same purchased from one Kaushal Kumar @ Sudama Ji. Petitioner is named by Kaushal. It is said that he purchased the same from this petitioner and another SIM was used in the mobile while it was presented in the police station. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no legal evidence in this case to involve petitioner in this case. It never can be denied that in cases of robbery confession is also material for collection of evidence, if that is followed by recovery then addition material and admissible also, identification is another evidence for collection which are not possible in case of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. Anand Kr. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)