P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 725 - CrPC - Evidence Act - Anticipatory Bail - Confession Of Co-accused

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS] - Anticipatory Bail - Custodial interrogation -Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence etc. - For the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into. (Para 23-24) -

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS] - Anticipatory Bail -Political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. (Para 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS] - Anticipatory Bail - In corruption cases concerning influential persons, effective interrogation of the 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 the 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.(Para 19)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24-30 [Section 22-24 BSA] : A Confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively -A police statement of an 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 the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused. (Para 53- iv)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438, 161 [Section 482,180 BNSS]Before the court looks into the police statement of any person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C for the purpose of anticipatory or regular bail, the 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 the offence(s) alleged -There may be situations where a person while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C may not be an accused, but later arrayed as one. In such a scenario the courts must be mindful of the fact that because the investigation is still ongoing, a person who was originally a witness may happen to be later arrayed as an accused person. If the court was to blindly place reliance on statement of such a person merely because he is not named in the first information report, without first seeing whether such person is likely to be arrayed as an accused or not, it would lead to an absurd situation where the statement of such a person may be relied upon up until such person is arrayed as an accused - Where it emerges from the material on record, that such a person is likely to be arrayed as an accused, the courts should refrain from expressing any such opinion so that the investigation is not prejudiced in any manner. (Para 53-x)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24-30 [Section 22-24 BSA] :A confessional statement of one accused implicating another co- accused may be taken into consideration by the court against such co- accused in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial, where (1) the confession itself was relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act; (2) was duly proved against the maker; (3) such confessional statement incriminates the maker along with the co- accused and; (4) both the accused persons in question are in a joint trial for the same offence- Such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused- Such confession cannot be taken into consideration under Section 30 where the confession itself was not relevant or inadmissible or where a co-accused was not being tried jointly with the accused person who made the confession or where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the co- accused(Para 37, 53- v, vi)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 17,21, 30 [Section 15,19,24 BSA] Where the police statement of an accused is in the form of an admission, such inculpatory statement even if it implicates another co-accused cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused in terms of Section(s) 17 read with 21 of the Evidence Act, as doing so would militate against the general principle, that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker alone. The exceptions to the aforesaid general principle carved out under the Evidence Act, do not permit the usage of such admission against a co-accused in any scenario whatsoever. (Para 53- vii)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161-162 -[Section 180,181 BNSS] A person who is accused of an offence or named in the first information report, can be examined by the police and his statement may be recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C - A statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, would ordinarily be of two kinds, it may be inculpatory in nature or may be exculpatory in nature - An inculpatory statement again may be in the form of an admission or a confession. If such statement admits either a gravely incriminating fact or substantially all the facts which constitute the offence, respectively, then it amounts to confession. (Para 53-i-iii)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161-162 -[Section 180,181 BNSS] - Where the police statement of the accused is an exculpatory statement i.e., it is neither a confession nor an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 of the Cr.PC., and the same may be used only for the very limited purpose provided in the 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, the same cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused, as there can be no credibility attached to an exculpatory statement of an accused implicating another co-accused, more particularly because it is neither required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the co-accused, the same cannot be tested by cross- examination and the exculpatory nature of such statement militates against the foundational principle that permits taking into consideration a statement of one accused person against another co-accused. (Para 53- viii) Where such statement of the accused is exculpatory in nature, the same can be looked into by the courts only for the limited purpose of either culling out the stance of the accused person qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.. However, such exculpatory statement insofar as it implicates another accused person cannot be looked into by the courts, as such statements by their nature cannot be tested by cross-examination if such accused person declines to be a witness in the trial in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., and because such exculpatory statement has no credibility. (Para 53-x)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161-162 -[Section 180,181 BNSS] - While it is permissible for the courts to examine the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and the nature or gravity of the allegations, the same applies only insofar as such police statements are of witnesses and not accused persons. (Para 45)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 30 [Section 24 BSA] Section 30 of Evidence Act postulates that such a confession can be taken into consideration only where the accused persons are jointly tried. The said provision does not merely require that the persons must be accused of the same offence, but rather requires that they must be being tried jointly for the said offence - Joint trial here refers to the one provided under Section 223 CrPC- Thus, where the accused persons are either not being tried jointly, or are yet to be charged for the same offence and thereafter tried together, Section 30 of the Evidence Act would be inapplicable- Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial, and any confession admissible thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by the courts. (Para 39-iiii)

LawLens - AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws