Thirumani Lovaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7231 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7231 AP
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Thirumani Lovaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2022

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7243 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal

Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the

petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.168 of 2022 of

Katrenikona Police Station, Konaseema District, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 34 (a) read with 34 (1), 11(2) and

42 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Amended in 2020).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2022 at

04.00 a.m., on reliable information, on instructions of the C.I. of Police

Mummidivaram and S.I. of Police, the Head Constable, along with staff

and mediators proceeded to Sachivalayam of Pallam village. There,

they noticed one fiber boat behind the village Secretariat in

Godavaripaya, Pallam Village, Katrenikona Mandal and in the said boat

two male persons were filling liquor bottles in bags. On finding the

men in uniform, they tried to escape. When Police chased them one

person ran away and one person was caught and 1163 liquor bottles

(180 ml each) of different brands were seized from them. Hence, the

above crime was registered against the petitioners and another.

3. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has

been raised in the grounds, contended that the petitioners have been

falsely implicated in the present crime. Even if the FIR is taken on its

face value, none of the allegations attract any offence much less the

offence alleged. It is stated that, the petitioners were implicated in the

present crime based on the confession statement of Accused No.1.

Further, the petitioners are having good reputation in the society and

in their family circles. In the event if they are arrested, their

reputation will be affected. Further, it is stated that the petitioners

would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while

granting bail and further, the petitioners will co-operate with the

investigation. Hence, prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that though there are no antecedents against the

petitioners, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner/A3 is involved in another

crime, which is not similar offence and it is pending and apprehended

that in the event if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may not

co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

6. On perusal of the material available on record and on

considering the submissions of both the learned counsel prima facie it

is evident that the petitioners were implicated in the present crime

based on the confession statement of A1.

In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar 1 , 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 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."

(1998) 8 SCC 130

Even in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu2 , the Apex Court

held any confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is

inadmissible in trial under the said Act.

6. In view of the submissions of both the learned counsel and as

there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and nothing

was seized from their possession and also by taking the judgment

referred supra into consideration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to

the petitioners, however by duly taking the apprehensions of the

learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their