TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Bp Naidu, Adv. Mr. Dhanamjaya Dutt Shrimali, Adv ORDER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CRL.) NO. 7533-34 OF 2025 1. Since the issues involved in the two petitions i.e. SLP (Crl.) No. 7532 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7533 of 2025 wherein anticipatory bail is being prayed for are same and the challenge is also to the self-same common impugned order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati denying anticipatory to the petitioners, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 registered at CID Police Station, \angalagiri, Guntur District for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 12-B read with Sections 34 & 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) & Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. We need not delve much into the case of the prosecution as put up, more particularly, when the High Court has reproduced the same exhaustively in its impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from O/o the Addl.DGP, CID, A.P., along with memo in C.No.7020/EOW C-14/CID-AP/2024, dated: 23.09.2024 with instructions to register a case. As per the instructions I registered the same as case in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 120(B) IPC is registered at CID PS, A.P, Mangalagiri on 23.09.2024 át 22:00 hrs. The original FIR along with the complainant's report and enclosures submit to The Hon'ble Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada and copy of FIR along with complainant's report and enclosures sent to the 1.0. Sri T.Daiva Prasad, DSP, CID, RO, Kurnool for investigation and copies to all concerned." 5. We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner namely P. Krishna Mohan Reddy and Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner namely K. Dhananjaya Reddy. 6. On the other hand, we heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently submit that their clients at the relevant point of time were holding publ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the State is that at this point of time, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of grant of anticipatory bail as it may have its own implications in the investigation which is in progress and is at a crucial stage. 16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that we should not exercise our discretion for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court has looked into the matter in details and thereafter, declined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. 17. The High Court while reaching the conclusion that more than a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail to them, has observed thus: - "22. According to the prosecution, the scheme in question favoured select liquor brands such as Adan and Leela, while sidelining well-established brands like Pernod Ricard and McDowell. As a result, several distilleries either shut down operations or diverted their products to other states Despite receiving consumer complaints regarding the quality of alcohol, no remedial measures were undertaken. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 27,72,050 8 HD Whiskey 22,02,555 32 This Court views that the investigating officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion in a case containing severe allegations. With regard to the Prosecution's case, the Investigation remains incomplete. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners could potentially hinder the ongoing investigation. The allegations are severe, and the investigating agency has not yet been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioners. The established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of routine; it should only be provided when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy. 36. The statements provided by several witnesses have underscored the petitioners' prima facie involvement in the criminal conspiracy associated with e Excise Policy. It cannot lose sight of serious allegations leveled by the prosecution and the evidences collected during the course of investigation and presented before this Court, which prima facie reveal the petitioners 'role in the offence in question. The material placed on record, its face, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt anticipatory bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence etc. 24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into. 25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point of time and the investigation should be permitted to proceed further. 26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. 27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have 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. The courts should keep on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneous to say that confessional statement made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act." (Emphasis supplied) 30. Since the High Court has touched Section 30 of the Evidence Act, we would like to say something in this regard. The said provision reads thus: - "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 take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession." 31. As per Section 5 of Evidence Act, only those facts or facts in issue which are considered relevant under Chapter II of the Act would be admissible as evidence. Section(s) 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, deals with the relevancy and admissibility of 'confessions' as evidence. Section 24 of the Evidence Act provides when a confes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not come within the definition of "Evidence" under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as it is neither required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the co-accused, and the same cannot be tested by cross-examination. Thus, although a confession against a co-accused, is not an evidence, yet as per Section 30, a court may take it into consideration and act upon it. However, the courts must be mindful that such confessions do not amount to proof, it is only one of the elements in the consideration of all other facts proved in a particular case, and therefore, there must be other evidence before such confession is taken into consideration. [See also: K. Hashim v. State of T.N., (2005) 1 SCC 237; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600] 36. This Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P reported in (1952) 1 SCC 275 further explained as to when such confession may be taken into consideration against another co-accused. Placing reliance on the decision of Periyaswami Moopan, In re. reported in 1930 SCC OnLine Mad 86 it was held that, "where there is evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Similarly, where one of the accused has been discharged, confessional statement of such accused persons cannot be used against a co-accused, as the pre-condition under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, namely of there being a joint trial for the same offence is not fulfilled. 39. The High Court has its own understanding of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It says that what is admissible under Section 30 can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail. However, we are not impressed with the view expressed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that such a confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail for the following reasons: - (i) Before a confession is taken into consideration against a co-accused, the said confession has to be duly proved against the maker. It has to be clearly established that such confession is not vitiated either by Section 24 of the Evidence Act nor rendered inadmissible by Section 25 thereof, which can only be ascertained in the course of trial. It must be clearly established by leading cogent evidence in the course of the trial bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer shall not be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. [See: Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 7 SCC 231] Confessional statement contemplated under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, must be both relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act. 41. At this stage, we may clarify, with a view to obviate any possibility of confusion, whether a confession statement of an accused person implicating another co-accused be taken into consideration against such co-accused in terms of Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 42. It is no more res integra that a person who is accused of an offence or named in the first information report, can be examined by the police and his statement may be recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., in this regard reliance may be placed on the decision of this Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1025. However, the question as to whether such statement of the accused is admissible in law and in what manner can the same be looked into was explained by this Court in Mahabir Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1972 1331, wherein it was held that as per Section 162 of the Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 161 CrPC, examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during trial and then would be entitled to grant bail to an accused". 45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and construed devoid of its context. While it is permissible for the courts to examine the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and the nature or gravity of the allegations, the same applies only insofar as such police statements are of witnesses and not accused persons. 46. Both Indresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail. 47. This is because a statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Evidence Act does not postulate the use of an admission by one accused against another, any statement of the accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., implicating such co-accused cannot be looked into by the courts. 50. Even where the police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is neither an admission nor a confession, i.e., it is exculpatory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements can be looked into by the courts only for the limited purpose of culling out the stance of the accused person qua the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time implicates another co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such statement is not hit by the safeguards and rigours that apply in respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an admissions or confessions under the Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general principle are inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in his confessional statement not only a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umspection. The said statements are directly hit by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Particularly, the statement given by any one of the accused persons and recorded by the police officer during the course of investigation cannot be relied upon by the prosecution, except subject to the limitations provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating third person cannot be proved legally in the court. It will be in direct conflict with Sections 25 and 26 respectively of the Evidence Act. If such evidence or confession cannot be proved, then the occasion for utilizing such statement against another person would not arise. 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: - (i) A person who is accused of an offence or named in the first information report, can be examined by the police and his statement may be recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., as held in Nandini Satpathy (supra). (ii) A statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, would ordinarily be of two kinds, it may be inculpatory in nature or may be exculpatory in nature. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 read with 21 of the Evidence Act, as doing so would militate against the general principle, that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker alone. The exceptions to the aforesaid general principle carved out under the Evidence Act, do not permit the usage of such admission against a co-accused in any scenario whatsoever. (viii) 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 under Section 161, would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 of the Cr.PC., 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, as held in Mahabir Mandal (supra). 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, more particularly because it is neither required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the co-accused, the same cannot be tested by cross- exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of anticipatory or regular bail, the court must first ascertain whether such person is actually a witness or an accused person, or likely to be an accused person in respect of the offence(s) alleged. This is because, there may be situations where a person while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C may not be an accused, but later arrayed as one. In such a scenario the courts must be mindful of the fact that because the investigation is still ongoing, it is more likely for a person who was originally a witness to happen to be later arrayed as an accused person. If the court was to blindly place reliance on statement of such a person merely because he is not named in the first information report, without first seeing whether such person is likely to be arrayed as an accused or not, it would lead to an absurd situation where the statement of such a person may be relied upon up until such person is arrayed as an accused. We also caution the courts, where it emerges from the material on record, that such a person is likely to be arrayed as an accused, the courts should refrain from expressing any such opinion so that the investigation is not prejudiced in....