JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Manjhari PS Case No. 37 of 2023 corresponding to GR No. 61 of 2024 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 3. As per the prosecution case the Informant, Prashant Kumar is an employee of Bharat Finance Company. On March 14, 2023, at around 8:00 a.m., Prashant Kumar collected weekly loan payments in various villages, including Chotta Pokharia, Chamrasai, Pilka Balkand, and Putisiya. While returning, near Mauda village, two miscreants on a CD Delux motorcycle without number plates chased him and dashed against his motorcycle, causing him to fall. The miscreants then snatched his bag, containing: a Samsung Tab and a Precision PB 510 (Biometric device). The informant alleges that the miscreants intimidated him by showing pistol. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case based on the confessional statement of co- accused Krishna Purty, without any independent evidence. The petitioner has a photocopy shop near Manjhari Police Station, and police officials have outstanding dues for copying services due to which the petitioner has been maliciously prosecuted in multiple cases. He further alleges that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime. The petitioner was initially made an accused in Manjhari P.S. Case No. 14 of 2021 based on the same co-accused’s confessional statement. Now, he has been implicated in the present case and another case being Manjhari P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023 based on the same statement, demonstrating an abuse of process. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that confession of the accused in another case cannot be used and since this case is based on the confession the petitioner cannot be made an accused. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that the FIR is against unknown. There is allegation that this petitioner and others were involved in committing offence. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that the FIR is against unknown. There is allegation that this petitioner and others were involved in committing offence. Admittedly there are two cases pending against the petitioner of similar nature i.e. under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code including the present one. This case needs detailed investigation including putting the petitioner on Test Identification Parade as the identity of the accused also needs to be established. 8. The point which learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken that on the basis of confession it cannot be used against the petitioner, at this stage, the same cannot be decided as based on confession of the co-accused a person can be made an accused but to sustain conviction there has to be other material evidences which can only be collected after investigation. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and the nature of this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner and accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed