Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.
Shaik Baba Fakroddinu Alias Godi Baba and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 10039 of 2025
Decided On : 03-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Dheera Kanishka.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Confessions of co-accused lack evidentiary value and cannot solely support prosecution against another accused, reinforcing the need for independent corroborative evidence.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act - Section 7(a), Section 8(e), Section 8(b)(ii) - Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1998 - Anticipatory bail - Petitioners sought anticipatory bail based on confessions of co-accused alone; court emphasized that confessions of co-accused have no evidentiary value and cannot solely substantiate charges against another accused (Paras 4, 6, 7).
(B) The court finds the balance of convenience favors granting anticipatory bail with conditions including weekly appearances and cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving the sale of illicit arrack and lottery tickets. They argued that their involvement was solely based on confessions from others (Para 1, 4).
Findings of Court:
The court inclined to grant anticipatory bail based on principles established regarding confessional statements. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether confessions of co-accused hold any evidentiary value and can serve as the sole basis for prosecution against another (Para 6).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that confessions of co-accused cannot initiate a case against another and emphasized the necessity of having independent evidence before proceeding (Paras 4, 6).
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and prosecution's narrative. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. argument on evidentiary value of confessions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's decision on anticipatory bail granting. (Para 7) |
| 4. final order of granting bail to petitioners. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.
The present Criminal Petition, under Section 4 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 seeking their release on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 326 of 2025 of Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 (a) read with Section 8 (e) and Section 8 (b) (ii) of the ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT and Section 4 (c) of Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1998.
2. Heard, Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11, and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 13-09-2025 at about 11 a.m., near Kutagulla Railway Gate, Kandikunta Narayanamma Colony, Kadiri Town, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, on credible information, found accused Nos. 1 to 5 while they were selling I.D. arrack and lottery tickets without any valid licence or permission. Thereafter, the police seized 16 liters of I.D. arrack, 47 lottery tickets and five cellphones from their possession, arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5 and remanded them to judicial custody. It is the further case of prosecution that accused Nos. 1 to 5 confessed the involvement of accused Nos. 6 to 10 in the case and accused No. 11 is the person who supplied lottery tickets to accused Nos. 1 to 10.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 contends that the present petitioners are merely shown as accused basing on the confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 to 5 which is contrary to law. This proposition of law is well settled and the learned counsel submits that the said proposition is reflected in Ground No. 2 which states that confession of a co-accused made before police has no evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for prosecution against another accused. He places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P. , AIR 1952 SC 159 and Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar , AIR 1964 SC 1184 which were re-affirmed in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias afsan guru, [ 2005 (11) SCC 600 ]. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.40 held as under:
“After referring to these decisions, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar further clarified the legal position thus : (SCR pp. 632-33)
“[1]n dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)”
5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the criminal petition contending that if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, it would be difficult for the State to procure their presence and proceed with investigation.
6. Though there is substance in the contention of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is also well settled that the law cannot be deviated which is settled way back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that confessional statements of the co-accused cannot form a basis to bring home the guilt of the other accused.
7. This Court, after hearing both sides, feels that balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 and inclines to grant ant
