AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.19 of 2022, dated 09.02.2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act.
Mr.R.Siva Sai Swarup, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 in this case. There are no similar criminal adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. However, one adverse antecedent is reported against the Petitioner. Be that as it may, it is well‑settled that the Petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.
The allegation against the Petitioner is that he is the supplier of 10,000 bottles of NDPL. The FIR was registered on 09.02.2022 vide Crime No.19 of 2022. The Petitioner filed a Criminal Petition seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crl.P.No.995 of 2022. The learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.09.2024, dismissed the quash petition. However, the Petitioner had enjoyed stay in the quash petition. The nature of the evidence available against the Petitioner is the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 3.
In this regard, it is profitable and relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 , wherein it is held that a confession made to the police by an accused is inherently inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be relied upon at the bail stage or during trial. Consequently, Section 30 does not permit using such a confession to implicate a co-accused. Thus, at Para No.53 (iv) it is held as under:
“53.From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:
(iv)Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively.
In other words, 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
(2020) 11 SCC 648
2025 SCC Online SC 1157 by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused.”
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence available against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on pre-arrest bail with some stringent conditions.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;
The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;
The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.
The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 05.10.2026 at 10.00 A.M. and shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation till filing of the charge sheet. If this condition is violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.