IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18209 of 2011 MD. EHTESHAMUL HAQUE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 14.06.2011. Heard. The case is under Sections 399 and 402 IPC besides under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name appeared in the confessional statement of a co-accused who was arrested in connection with offence under the Arms Act. This is the reason that the police is attempting to arrest the petitioner. Confessional statement may not be admissible evidence, but if one peruses the provisions of Section 41 Cr.P.C one may find that even if suspicion about a person of being concerned with commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is there then he could very well be arrested. In a case of the present nature, it could be one of the steps in the investigation that the remand of the petitioner is obtained by the police for his questioning and further 2 collection of evidence. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner or accused persons of offences of present class then it shall be sheer misuse of the provision and considering that the prayer is dismissed. However, the above observations of this Court must not prejudice the minds of the lower court and the lower courts must apply their minds free from all prejudices when it considers the defence and thereafter proceeds to dispose of the regular bail when the petitioner appears and makes the prayer. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)