In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.M.No. M-28100/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 1.10.2010. Sanjeev Kumar ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh. Present:- Mr.SS Momi,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mahabir Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana. Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral). Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.330 dated 21.5.2010 under Section 379 IPC, PS City Sirsa. As per allegations in the FIR, motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-59/9856 belonging to complainant Honey Jain was recovered from one Virender Singh, who suffered a disclosure statement that he had purchased the same from petitioner Sanjeev Kumar for Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel states that petitioner has been falsely involved in the present FIR as no recovery has been effected from him. It is further contended that confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner and in the absence of any other evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence, no case is made out against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Dharambir, CIA Staff Sirsa, states that besides the aforesaid FIR, petitioner is also accused in (i) FIR No.397 dated 12.6.2010 under Section 379,420 IPC relating to theft of a car and (ii) FIR No.242 dated 8.4.2010 under Section 379 IPC, PS City Sirsa relating to theft of a motorcycle. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to confession of a co-accused and its admissibility is a matter to be seen at the stage of trial and not at the stage of investigation of the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that petitioner is involved in two other FIRs, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unravel his involvement in the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 1.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge