Ketha Rambabu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5464 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5464 AP
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ketha Rambabu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2022

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6243 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is filed by the

petitioner/A-2, seeking to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.592

of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Rajamahendravaram South, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A) and 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.07.2022

at about 9.00 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Rajamahendravaram South along with staff and mediators

conducted raid for prohibition and excise offences reached the

scene of offence and found one person stirring with stick in

drum. The police arrested the said person, who is, A-1 and on

interrogation, he revealed that the drums contain FJ wash. The

police found total 600 liters of FJ wash and also found 20 liters

of ID liquor and they seized the same under the cover of

mediators report. Basing on the mediators report, the present

crime was registered. A-1 revealed that he purchased jaggery

from the present petitioner, as such, the petitioner herein is

arrayed as A-2 in the present crime.

3. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration,

contended that only basing on the confession statement of A-1,

the petitioner was roped in the present case and the petitioner is

not at all involved in the crime. He further contended that

investigation is almost completed and the petitioner is ready to

abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence,

he would pray for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor contended that the petitioner has been supplying

jaggery to A-1 and instead of taking amount from A-1, he used

to take the contraband and sell the same to the public for higher

price. He further contended that the investigation in this case is

almost completed except arrest of this petitioner. However, if the

petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, he may not cooperate

with the investigation and prayed to dismiss the bail application

of the petitioner.

6. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar1, while dealing with the

confessional statements made by the accused persons before a

police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:

"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no

(1998) 8 SCC 130

objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of both the learned counsel, prima

facie it appears that basing on the confession statement of A-1

only, the petitioner is arrayed as A-2 in this case and as already

substantial investigation is completed, and further A-1 was

already released on bail and also by taking the observation in

the judgment referred above, this Court is inclined to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner, however taking due care of the

apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

on certain conditions:

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed on the

following conditions.