Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory bail — Confessional statement of co-accused — Evidentiary value — Scope of interference under S. 482.
Where petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were sought to be implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused (A-1 to A-5) recorded by police, held, such confession cannot form the sole basis either to prosecute or to deny bail to another accused. Court must first consider independent evidence adduced by prosecution, and only thereafter may use confession, if any, for limited corroborative assurance.
Held, proposition is well-settled that confession of a co-accused made before police has no evidentiary value and cannot be used against another accused. [Followed Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159; Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600.]
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act — Ss. 7(a), 8(e), 8(b)(ii) — Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1998 — S. 4(c) — Offences — Anticipatory bail — Confession of co-accused — When relief may be granted.
On facts, seizure of I.D. arrack and lottery tickets was only from A-1 to A-5; petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were shown as accused solely on co-accused confession. No independent material connected petitioners to seizure or sale.
Held, balance of convenience in favour of petitioners; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions to surrender within ten days, execute personal bond of ₹ 20,000 with two sureties, appear weekly before S.H.O. and cooperate in investigation.
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 30 — Confession of co-accused — Limited use — Principle reaffirmed.
Reiterated, court cannot start with confession of co-accused; must first appraise other evidence, and only then look to confession for assurance to conclusion already reached. (Para 4, quoting Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, para 40.)
Held:
Confessional statement of co-accused before police cannot form the sole basis for prosecution or arrest of another accused — law well-settled by Supreme Court — petitioners shown as accused only on such confession — anticipatory bail granted with conditions.
APHC010510762025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3548]
FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10039/2025
Between:
Shaik Baba Fakroddinu Alias Godi Baba
and Others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.DHEERA KANISHKA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
This Court made the following
2025:APHC:41100
2
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition, under Section 482 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
2025:APHC:41100
3
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.1
and Haricharan
Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar2 which were re-affirmed in State (NCT of
Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias afsan guru3
. 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)”
1 AIR 1952 SC 159
2 AIR 1964 SC 1184
3 2005 (11) SCC 600
2025:APHC:41100
4
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 anticipatory bail to them with certain conditions.
8 The petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are therefore directed to
surrender before the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police Station,
Sri Sathya Sai District, within a period of ten days from today. On such
surrender, the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are ordered to be
released on bail on their executing each a personal bond for Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each
to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police
Station. After release, the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are
directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police
Station, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and
2025:APHC:41100
5
1.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet. The petitioners-accused Nos. 10
and 11 are also directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and
not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_____________________________
Date: 03-10-2025, JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
JSK
2025:APHC:41100
6
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10039 OF 2025
DATE: 03RD OCTOBER, 2025
JSK
2025:APHC:41100