Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1050
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Patibandla Gopala Swamy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6227 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
V. Nitesh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents
Confessional statements made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 438 - PRE-ARREST BAIL - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MADE BY ACCUSED BEFORE POLICE OFFICER AFTER INVESTIGATION STARTED IS INADMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 34(a) and 50B(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, alleging false implication and lack of evidence against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' names were not properly mentioned in the mediators report and they were arrayed as accused only based on the confession statements of other accused. The court also noted that substantial investigation was completed.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted pre-arrest bail considering the confessional statements of other accused and the stage of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar, which held that confessional statements made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started are inadmissible as evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on certain conditions, including executing self bonds, appearing before the Station House Officer thrice a week, and cooperating with the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioners/A-11 and A-12, seeking to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 41 of 2021 of Special enforcement Bureau, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) and 50B(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.03.2021 at about 4.30 AM, the Enforcement officials along with mediators reached the scene of offence and while they were checking the vehicles coming from Sattenapalli towards Narasaropet, the police noticed one Bolero pick-up vehicle and two bikes and stopped the same. On seeing the police, two persons ran away and escaped from the scene. The police apprehended two persons and on interrogation, they revealed that they are transporting liquor bottles. On search, the police found total 8246 liquor bottles. Thereafter, the police seized the contraband and arrested the said two persons, under the cover of mediators report. Basing on the said mediators report, the present crime was registered. The arrested accused revealed the role of present petitioners, as such, they are arrayed as A-11 and A-12 in this case.
3. Heard Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel representing Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration, contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and their names are not shown in the mediators report as well as in the FIR. She further contended that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioners and only basing on the confession statement of arrested accused, the petitioners are arrayed as accused. She further contended that the details of the petitioners such as father's name, surname, age and residential address are not shown in the record and the name of the 2nd petitioner herein is shown as 'Challapalli Gopinath' in some places of the Case Diary. Hence, the petitioners are apprehending arrest as such, she would pray for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the names of the petitioners came into light basing on the confession statements of other accused He submits that as the petitioners have paid Rs. 20,000/- by way of of Phone-Pay and purchased the liquor, their involvement in the present crime is very much established and that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, they may not cooperate with the investigation.
6. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130, 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.'
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material available on record, the names of the petitioners were not properly mentioned in the mediators report and they are arrayed as accused only basing on the confessi
