The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that disclosure statement of a co-accused can be taken into consideration for providing a lead in the investigation and the same is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The High Court was considering an Anticipatory Bail Application in an FIR for an offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The single bench of Justice Mallikarjuna Rao held, "It is erroneous to say that confessional statements made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing a lead in the investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate K Rama Koteswara Rao while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor.
Facts of the Case
The Accused persons were arrested in an operation during sale and seized a total of 13.288 kilograms of Ganja. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that only on the confession of the other accused, the Petitioner is arrayed as assured in the crime and that there is no proof of payment of money and that the Petitioner has no criminal background.
On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant of bail to the Petitioner on the ground that he had engaged the other accused to sell ganja.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the initiation of the proceedings against the Petitioner was premature and that the Petitioner was falsely roped in the case merely based on the confessional statement of the other accused and that there is no incriminating material against the Petitioner. He submitted that the Investigation authorities have not collected any independent material showing his involvement in the commission of the offence.
Reasoning By Court
The Court stated that it is trite law that the power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly and thus pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. It referred to Supreme Court's decision in State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu.Noting that the co-accused have been arrested and they have made specific allegations against the Petitioner in their confessional statements and they would be tested at the time of trial, the Court stated that no reason has also been pleaded as to why the co-accused would try to falsely implicate the Petitioner."Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession," the Court observed.It further noted that though the contraband seized does not constitute a commercial quantity, it is important to note that it is still several times greater than what is considered a small quantity."While it is true that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that A.6 is the prime accused, having encouraged A.1 and A.2 to purchase ganja from the Andhra-Orissa border in the Agency area. The petitioner claims to run a Sri Durga Dhaba in Metta upparagudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, where many customers frequently visit, some of whom use his phone to contact their relatives. However, the petitioner has not denied any acquaintance with A.1 and A.2. The investigation in this case remains incomplete, and A.6, the petitioner, has not yet been apprehended. The investigating agency still needs to gather evidence regarding the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a significant risk of interference with the ongoing investigation," the Court observed.Considering the grave nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, the Court was of the view that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required in this case for proper and just investigation of this case."However, the offence alleged to be committed is against the society, and thus, considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances, thus, the implication of the petitioner prima facie cannot be said to be without justification. Thus, no such circumstances have been made out in this case, and this Court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.6. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner/A.6 is liable to be dismissed," the Court stated.The Petition was accordingly dismissed.Cause Title: Kamma Aravind Kishore @ Kamma Aravind vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshClick here to read/ download Order
