ORDER This order shall dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 9970 of 2004 Cr. Misc. No. 11737 of 2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted on behalf of each of the petitioners that petitioner Ram Pravesh Prasad is in jail since 25.6.2003 while in another case petitioner Chhotelal Sah is in jail since 16.10.2003. It is submitted that the first information report was lodged against unknown persons and despite lodgement of the accused in jail for 14 months and 10 months, respectively, they have not been put for identification. It is also submitted that the alleged reovery would not connect the accused with the alleged crime. 3. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the application however, was unable to give out any reason for not putting the petitioners for identification. 4. Taking into consideration the long incarceration and the fact that the applicants have not been put for identification, I grant these applications. 5. Let petitioners Ram Pravesh Prasad and Chhotelal Sah be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in Basantpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2003 to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan. 6. At this stage, I am required and obliged to pay that when a confessional statement is made before the Police, the same is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 25 of the Act says that no confession made to a Police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Of late, I am finding that in almost every case, the Police Officer records that a confessional statement was made before him and relying upon the said confessional statement, which not only involves the person making such statement but many other persons who are detained in jail, their application for grant of bail is rejected. The confession made by the accused, if it is inculpatory and is made before the competent Court, then only the same is admission under section 30 of the Evidence Act. The confession made by the accused, if it is inculpatory and is made before the competent Court, then only the same is admission under section 30 of the Evidence Act. Section 30 of the Act says that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may lake into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such offence. It is also to be noted that a confession must be proved in accordance with law and retracted confession many times may not lead to conviction. 7. For the purposes of making recovery, the Police officer records in the case diary that an information was supplied to him by the accused which led to discovering a fact and ultimately certain articles were recovered. For that purpose reference to Section 27 of the Act would be profitable. Section 27 of the Act says that provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 8. To simplify the language of this section, I must observe that if an allegation against the accused is that while confessing commission of the crime, he informs the Police that weapon of the offence has been thrown at a particular place or has been covered at particular place then if on basis of this information the article is recovered, then only two facts would be admissible in law firstly that the accused informed the Police officer that the weapon of the offence was placed at particular place or was disposed in a particular manner and that a discovery of the fact and recovery of the weapon was made. His confession even under section 27 of the Act that he committed the crime would not be relevant. In a case where allegation is made against unknown persons, then it is the prime duty of the prosecuting/investigating agency to conduct the test identification parade immediately. His confession even under section 27 of the Act that he committed the crime would not be relevant. In a case where allegation is made against unknown persons, then it is the prime duty of the prosecuting/investigating agency to conduct the test identification parade immediately. The conduction of the test identification parade is not only for collecting further evidence but to collect information from the first informant or the victim or the eye witnesses that the person who was identified by him in the test identification parade in fact committed the crime. 9. In this State, I am obliged to observe that the Police officers do not conduct investigation in accordance with law. After arrest of the person, for months rather years he is not put in test identification parade. The Police Officer relies upon the confession made before him which is otherwise hit under section 25 of the Act. Without preparing the memorandum under section 27 of the Act which could contain signature of the officer recording memorandum, the witness before whom memorandum was recorded and the signature of the accused who gives such information, a simple observation is made in the case diary that such an information was given and thereafter certain recoveries were made. When such cryptic investigation is made, the crime rate has to rise high because there is no possibility of any conviction. I am observing all these because I am finding that in almost every case, in which the accused persons have not been named in the first information report, test identification parade is not conducted and every time the Police relies upon the confession made before it. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for its onwards circulation to the Police Officers that they are required to conduct investigation in a particular manner. The D.G.P. should not forget that if he holds the position of the captain then he is required to play the game in accordance with rule, any lapse or foul on the part of the investigating agency would lead to a bad result.