Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC cannot be quashed in pre-trial writ proceedings based on allegations of accomplice status, as the admissibility, reliability, and voluntariness of such evidence are factual issues to be tested during the trial.

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that FIR No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 was registered at VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, Telangana under Sections 120B , 121A, 153A, 141 read with 34 IPC. and Section 13(1)(b) of the UA(P) Act against certain accused persons. Respondent - National Investigating Agency (NIA), Hyderabad took over the investigation and re-registered the case as RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD on 26.08.2022 at NIA Police Station, Hyderabad under Sections 120B , 121A, 153A, 141 read with 34 IPC. and Sections 13(1)(b), 18A and 18B of the UA(P) Act, 1967. Thereafter, NIA, on 29.12.2022, filed a charge sheet against eleven accused persons before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad and the same was numbered as Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023.

1.1. It is stated, on 16.03.2023, NIA filed a supplementary charge sheet against five accused persons including petitioner and arrayed them as Accused 32 to 36 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2023. On 21.09.2023, the Learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad disposed Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2023 and clubbed the same with Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023 for common proceedings. In Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023, Respondent cited 85 witnesses and in the supplementary charge sheet, cited 42 witnesses, and out of the combined list, 46 witnesses are affiliated to the alleged organization which is termed as unlawful, and from their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it clearly appears that they are participants and members of the alleged offences along with the accused persons including petitioner.

1.2. Such persons, being participants/accomplices in the alleged offence, it is stated, cannot have their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, and the only legally-permissible procedure is under Section 306 Cr.P.C by tender of pardon through Court, therefore, the entire statements relied upon by the prosecution are contrary to law.

1.3. Respondent - NIA, under the guise of investigation, summoned innocent individuals repeatedly under Section 160 Cr.P.C, detained them for long hours in the office, interrogated them on irrelevant aspects, and by instilling fear of incarceration, compelled them to give statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and sponsored statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C to suit the narrative of the Agency. The witnesses were specifically threatened that if they do not cooperate and accept the version of the Respondent, they would also be implicated as accused and would remain in jail for 15 years, and such coercion, repeated summoning and intimidation can be verified from the case diary maintained under Section 172 Cr.P.C and CCTV footage which the agency is bound to preserve.

1.4. It is alleged, Respondent had deliberately bypassed the mandatory procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C, which is intended for the offences triable by Sessions Court and Special Court, to prevent misuse and to ensure that accomplice evidence is recorded only through judicial process after tender of pardon. Instead of following Section 306 Cr.P.C, Respondent adopted an illegal method by summoning persons under Section 160 Cr.P.C and forcing them to give statements under Sections 161 and 164(5) Cr.P.C, thereby subverting the statutory safeguards. Respondent has further concealed the identity of such witnesses by invoking Section 44 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of NIA Act and treating them as protected witnesses without any judicial order, whereas the law mandates that only the Court can declare a witness as protected upon proper application. According t