ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Sk. Akthar Roshan – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5544 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 438 CR.P.C - PRE-ARREST BAIL - MURDER - SECTION 120-B, 302, 404, 201 IPC - CONFESSION BEFORE POLICE OFFICER - INADMISSIBILITY - DETENTION OF PETITIONER AND CO-ACCUSED IN POLICE CUSTODY - ILLEGAL - GRANT OF BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused of murder and conspiracy, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Initially, the case was registered as 'Man Missing,' but later, based on the confession of co-accused A-2 and A-3, the section of law was altered to include murder and other offenses. The petitioner was implicated as A-1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confession made by A-2 and A-3 before a police officer was inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner was illegally detained in police custody, as confirmed by a report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) in response to a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession made by A-2 and A-3 before a police officer was admissible as evidence against the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was illegally detained in police custody? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confession made by A-2 and A-3 before a police officer was inadmissible as evidence against the petitioner, relying on Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits the use of such confessions in court. 2. The court found that the petitioner was illegally detained in police custody, based on the report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) and the subsequent suspension of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapeta Police Station. 3. Considering the inadmissibility of the confession, the illegal detention of the petitioner, the completion of a substantial part of the investigation, and the fact that the petitioner was a woman who had recently given birth, the court concluded that she was entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petition and granted the petitioner pre-arrest bail, subject to her executing a personal bond and cooperating with the investigation. The court clarified that the findings in the order were limited to the purpose of considering bail and would not have any bearing in any other proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 48 of 2021 of Kothapeta Police Station, East Godavari District, filed the above criminal petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that initially a report given by Mohammed Khasim Saheb, resident of Kothapeta village, East Godavari District, stating that his son Mohammed Abdul Khadar, who was working as opting driver, left his house on 24.01.2021 at about 6.00 a.m. on his Hero Honda CBZ Xtream motorcycle bearing No. AP05 BE 8807 and did not return to home. Basing on the said report, police registered the above crime under the Head 'Man Missing'. In the said report, it was stated that about two years back, he brought one marriage alliance to his son with the petitioner herein, who is resident of Nandigama, Krishna District, but the parents of petitioner did not agree for the same. Later, he came to know that his son and the petitioner used to talk over phone and his son also used to meet the petitioner secretly. On 24.01.2021, he came to know that his son went to meet the petitioner, but when he enquired the petitioner, her father and uncle, they stated that they are not connected with the missing of his son.
During the course of investigation, owing to recovery of cell phone of missing man Khadar, basing on strong suspicion, on 21.09.2021 at 3.30 a.m., police apprehended A-2 and A-3, near the house of A-3 at Thokalavaripalem village, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur District. On enquiry, A-2 and A-3 confessed that petitioner loved one Kancharla Naveen Babu (A-2), who belongs to SC-Mala community and in the year 2017. A2 proposed his love to petitioner and she accepted for the same. However, the parents of petitioner did not accept for it and they brought a marriage alliance to petitioner with one Khadar (Missing Man), but the petitioner rejected the same. Thereafter, petitioner informed him over phone that said Khadar used to harass her by making phone call to her and she proposes to A2 to kill the said Khadar. Accordingly, on 24.01.2021, A2 along with his cousin, Vasumalla Ashok (A-3) and petitioner hatched a plan and took the said Khadar to the room of his friend Narasimha at Naidupeta, Guntur, where Naveen Babu and petitioner strangulated the neck of Khadar with a skipping rope and said Ashok caught hold of legs of Khadar and killed him. Thereafter they concealed the dead body into gunny bags and thrown the same in Krishna River at Penumudi bridge. Police recorded the confession of A-2 and A-3 and arrested them under the cover of mediators report. Basing on the same, section of law was altered from 'Man Missing' to Section 120-B, 302, 404, 201 of IPC.
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-State stating that petitioner along with her associates A-2 and A-3 conspired together and executed the murder of deceased and subsequently disposed of the dead body without leaving trace of it. On careful analysis of call data (CDRs) among A-1 to A-3, tower locations of A-1 to A-3 and deceased, especially the conversation of A-1 with deceased luring him to come to Guntur, pointed out towards the guilt of A-1 to A-3. The voice test for conversations of A-1 with deceased had to be sent to FSL after taking sample voice of A-1, for which, the presence of petitioner is required. Moreover, the dead body is not yet recovered, and investigation is still pending and at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail. It is further stated that subsequent to filing of the writ petition by the petitioner herein, this Court on 21.09.2021 called for a report from the Additional Director General of Police, who submitted the report on 23.09.2021 and thereafter in view of irregularities found in conducting investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police was suspended. It is further stated that taking advantage of the same, A-2 and A-3 are not cooperating with the investigation. Finally
Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 22
Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [2017 (13) SCALE 609]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312
AI
Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible as evidence against an accused person under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
The court must consider the antecedents of the applicant and the possibility of the applicant to repeat similar or other offenses while on bail when deciding on pre-arrest bail applications.
Pre-arrest bail was denied due to serious charges against the petitioners and sufficient prima facie evidence necessitating their arrest to ensure a fair investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.