(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 [Section 482 of BNSS, 2023] - Anticipatory bail - Denial - Case registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 12-B read with Sections 34 & 37 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 - In corruption cases concerning influential persons, effective interrogation of suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which are likely to be concealed - Success in such interrogation would elude if suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated - Very often interrogation in such condition would reduce to a mere ritual - Anticipatory bail to accused in cases of present nature would greatly harm investigation and would impede prospects of unearthing of ramifications involved in conspiracy - Public interest also would suffer as a consequence - High Court remained alive and very rightly to apprehension of investigating agency that petitioners would influence witnesses, considering particularly high position they all held at one point of time. (Paras 19 and 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 [Section 482 of BNSS, 2023] - Anticipatory bail - Denial - It would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail - Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required court is obliged to consider entire case put up by State, more particularly, nature of offence and punishment provided in law for such offence - When two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same - However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for grant of anticipatory bail - Courts should not just look into aspect of political vendetta and ignore other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by State - It is only when court is convinced more than prima facie that allegations are frivolous and baseless, that court may bring into element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering plea of anticipatory bail - Frivolity in entire case that court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta - Petition disposed of with directions. (Paras 23, 27 and 55)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 30 - Confessional statement - Police statement of 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 by virtue of Section 25 of Evidence Act, provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of accused to implicate another co-accused - Confessional statement of one accused implicating another co-accused may be taken into consideration by court against such co-accused in terms of Section 30 of Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial, where (1) confession itself was relevant and admissible in terms of Evidence Act; (2) was duly proved against maker; (3) such confessional statement incriminates maker along with co-accused and (4) both accused persons in question are in a joint trial for same offence.(Paras 34, 35 and 53)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Statement of accused - Where police statement of accused is an exculpatory statement i.e., it is neither confession nor admission, statement being one under Section 161, would immediately attract bar under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and same may be used only for very limited purpose provided in Proviso for the purpose of contradiction or re-examination of such accused person alone - Even if such exculpatory statement of one accused, implicates another co-accused, same cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused, as there can be no credibility attached to exculpatory statement of accused implicating another co-accused - Before court looks into police statement of any person under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of anticipatory or regular bail, 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 offences alleged. (Paras 43, 44, 45 and 53)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners have been denied anticipatory bail by High Court in connection with crime registered for offences 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

If petitioners are ultimately arrested, remanded and thereafter sent to judicial custody and if any regular bail application is filed, same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Principles of grant of anticipatory bail substantially differ from the principles of grant of regular bail. It is for the Court concerned to apply the correct principles of law so far as the grant of regular bail is concerned and decide the same accordingly.

Result : Special Leave Petitions disposed of with observations and directions.