Judgment Mr. Sudip Ahluwalia, J. This is a petition for regular bail filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.66 dated 02.03.2020, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 411, 201 & 115 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Line Hisar. 2. The petitioner has remained in detention in the present case for more than 1½ years, since 08.06.2020. 3. The petitioner was admittedly not named in the FIR which was lodged in the contest of the murder of the complainant’s husband, namely, Dharampal. But, she subsequently gave a supplementary statement in which it was stated:- “Due to vindication the said Jaipal Singh Nain, Ravinder, Jagdeep and Sunil Syoran also tried to kill my husband and my daughter Sonu and he also gave ransom to the Sonu son of Ajit Lohan, resident of Narnaud, however he was arrested before committed the offence.” Emphasis added 4. From the emphasised portion of the aforesaid statement, it is clear that according to the complainant herself, the petitioner was not physically present in the occurrence as he had already been arrested before the offence was committed. 5. Further, as noted in the previous order passed on 09.12.2021, the only incriminating material against the petitioner happens to be his own confessional/disclosure statement regarding acceptance of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance out of the total ‘Supari’ of Rs.5 lacs for committing the murder of the complainant’s husband. 6. This Court had consequently asked the Ld. State Counsel to show any available material regarding actual involvement of the petitioner in the murder, since mere acceptance of a part of the ‘Supari’ amount would not ipso facto mean that he was actually involved in an occurrence which admittedly took place after he had already been apprehended by the Hansi Police. 7. Ld. State Counsel in all fairness, on instructions from S.I. Ramesh Kumar, submits that there is no material collected during investigation to substantiate this supposition. 8. Undoubtedly, the own confession made by an accused before the Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, there is no justification to detain the petitioner any further for an indefinite period in the present case considering the sketchy nature of material available to show his involvement. 8. Undoubtedly, the own confession made by an accused before the Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, there is no justification to detain the petitioner any further for an indefinite period in the present case considering the sketchy nature of material available to show his involvement. The fact that he is facing proceedings in several other cases involving heinous offences, is inconsequential for the purpose of deciding his bail petition on its own merits in the present case. 9. Resultantly, considering the long detention undergone by the petitioner, at this stage he is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned and also subject to the condition that he shall not by any means try to contact or influence the complainant and her family members or any other prosecution witnesses. 10. Needless to mention that no part of observation made in this order shall cast any reflection upon the final merits of the case and the Ld. Trial Court shall come to its independent decision after completion of Trial being not influenced by any such observation. 11. Disposed off.