The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that confessional statements 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 the investigation and even during the trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that credible information was received regarding the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, then, the SI rushed to the place and while conducting vehicle checking, they found one container, a lorry, which was coming from Tuni to Visakhapatnam side, stopped at some distance from the police party, and on seeing the Police, the driver of the lorry, i.e., A.1, got down from the lorry and tried to escape. Then the S.I. of Police, along with his staff, caught hold of him, enquired about him and arrested him, seized 530 kgs of Ganja under cover of a mediators’ report, and registered a case for the offense punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner. It was furthermore submitted that the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co accused.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the investigation is at the crucial stage and the charge sheet is still not filed. It was furthermore submitted that the confessional statement is a weak piece of evidence that cannot be taken at this stage.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is a well-established legal precedent that the power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and should only be used in rare circumstances. As a result, pre-arrest bail cannot be regularly provided.
It was furthermore observed that the co-accused has been taken into custody and in his confessional statement, he has leveled specific accusations against the petitioner. It is crucial to remember that the co-accused's statement will be examined during the trial. Furthermore, no explanation for the co-accused's attempt to unjustly implicate the petitioner has been offered. Also, the accused cannot be connected to the other co-accused by examining or taking into account confessional statements they made during interrogation. Given that Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act permits its admission during trial, the co-accused's disclosure statement can undoubtedly be considered as a lead source for the investigation.
The court noted that the jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed.
It was furthermore noted that the offence committed is of grave nature and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/Accused is required in this case for proper and just investigation of this case.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no reason for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/A.2.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal petition.
Case Title: Polupilli Durga Prasad V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 102/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: KOTTI SIVA
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
