IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43493 of 2009 Naveen Kumar Singh alias Mintu Singh, Son of Shiv Dayal Singh, Village Baraitha, P.S. Katra, District Muzaffarpur. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party with Cr.Misc. No.42449 of 2009 Ranjan Kumar, Son of Sahdeo Prasad, Resident of Village Nawada, P.S. Katra, District Muzaffarpur. ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party with Cr.Misc. No.36786 of 2009 Vinita Devi @ Vinita Singh, W/O - Ganesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Vill. - Shishwara, P.S - Katra, Distt – Muzaffarpur. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 4.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State in the cases of Vinita Devi @ Vinita Singh and Ranjan Kumar. No one appears to press the application of Naveen Kumar Singh @ Mintu Singh. Consequently, Cr. Misc. No. 43493 of 2009 filed by Naveen Kumar Singh @ Mintu Singh is dismissed for default. 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 2 question and thereafter had got down from the same with her child and therefore, her implication in this case 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 3 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. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)