JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.07.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 IPC @ 302, 397, 404 and 380 IPC in Cr.No.168 of 2005 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. This is the 6th bail petition that has been filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case has been stated in the last bail petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.24989 of 2015 dated 05.01.2016, which reads as under: "2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner murdered his employer and his wife viz., Sheela on 06.04.2005 and after investigation by CBCID, one Balamurugan was arrested and the petitioner surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer on 14.07.2015 and confessed that he only murdered the deceased and committed the theft of jewels and some of the jewels are recovered and some of the jewels are yet to be recovered. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the incident took place on 06.04.2005 and after 10 years, the petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2015. The petitioner further submitted that originally the case was investigated by the Inspector of Police in CBCID and subsequently, it was transferred to the present respondent police. The petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 14.07.2015. Further, it is alleged that the materials seized from the scene of occurrence was not sent for chemical analysis and the respondent police have not followed the procedure.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the extra judicial confession that is alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the Village Administrative Officer, who is said to be 7 kms away from the village of the petitioner looks suspicious. He has also contended that pursuant to the confession of the accused only a ring was recovered. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner was all along available in the village and in order to close the case and satisfy the relatives of victim, the present case has been foisted upon him. 5. He has also contended that pursuant to the confession of the accused only a ring was recovered. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner was all along available in the village and in order to close the case and satisfy the relatives of victim, the present case has been foisted upon him. 5. On the contrary, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after the CBCID took over the investigation pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner and one Balamurugan were zeroed. In sensing his imminent arrest by the CBCID, the petitioner surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer voluntarily and gave a confession statement. 6. It is a trite law that the confession statement given to the Village Administrative Officer is admissible in evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sivakumar vs State, [2006 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 228]. As to the reliability of it, the same cannot be decided in a bail petition. 7. As regards the recoveries, the finding that they are vitiated cannot be given in a petition for bail and those aspects have to be decided only at the time of appreciation of evidence. There is no change in fact situation for the purpose of granting bail. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.