P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Held: Such a confession cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail – High Court had its own understanding of s.30, Evidence Act that what is admissible u/s.30 can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail – Said view not agreed with – Police statements of the co-accused u/s.161, CrPC cannot be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail to another co-accused – A statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C stands on a different footing from a police statement of any ordinary witness – A statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C., would ordinarily be inculpatory or exculpatory – An inculpatory statement again may be in the form of an admission or a confession – Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of ss.25 and 26 respectively will apply – A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by ss.24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of ss.26, 28 and 29, Evidence Act – A police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial – Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of s.25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of s.30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused – A confessional statement of one accused implicating another co-accused may be taken into consideration by the court against such co-accused in terms of s.30, Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial provided the conditions therein are fulfilled – However, such confessional statements can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, provided the ingredients or conditions of s.30 r/w ss.24 to 29, Evidence Act, are fulfilled – Further, where the police statement of an accused is in the form of an admission, such inculpatory statement even if it implicates another co-accused cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused in terms of ss.17 r/w 21, Evidence Act, as doing so would militate against the general principle, that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker alone – Furthermore, where the police statement of the accused is an exculpatory statement i.e., it is neither a confession nor an admission, the statement being one u/s.161, would immediately attract the bar u/s.162, CrPC and the same may be used only for the very limited purpose provided in the Proviso for the purpose of contradiction or re-examination of such accused person alone – Even if such exculpatory statement of one accused, implicates another co-accused, the same cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused, as there can be no credibility attached to an exculpatory statement of an accused implicating another co-accused – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 420, 120B r/w.34, 37 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 39, 46, 53]

Evidence Act, 1872 – s.30 – Ingredients or conditions required under, for a confession to operate against a co-accused – Stated. [Para 37]

Anticipatory bail – Denial of – Corruption case – Political bias alleged:

Held: High Court looked into the matter in details and exercised its discretion in a judicious manner while declining to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners – In corruption cases concerning influential persons, effective interrogation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage – High Court rightly appreciated the apprehension of the investigating agency that the petitioners would influence the witnesses, considering particularly the high position they all held at one point of time – Anticipatory bail to accused in cases of the present nature would greatly harm the investigation and impede the prospects of unearthing of the ramifications involved in the conspiracy – Public interest also would suffer as a consequence – Though, to some extent, the petitioners made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record – Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail however, that by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail – Courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State – It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that it may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. [Paras 16, 18-20, 27]