The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to an accused in an excise offence case, reinforcing the principle that confessional statements made to police under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be relied upon to implicate another co-accused. The judgment underscores the inadmissibility of such statements at both bail and trial stages, aligning with established Supreme Court precedents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sandra Lokesh Chowdary, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No. 31 of 2022, registered by the Special Enforcement Bureau, Indukurupeta Circle, SPSR Nellore District. The case was filed for an alleged offence under Section 34(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, involving seized contraband.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was implicated based on the confession of Accused No. 1, in whose house the contraband was seized
- The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner had been absconding
- On 29.03.2022, the offence was registered under the Excise Act
- On 21.04.2026, an anticipatory bail application (Criminal M.P. No. 417 of 2026) was dismissed by the Special Enforcement Bureau
Procedural History
- 29.03.2022: Crime registered under Section 34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968
- 2022: Charge sheet filed, alleging the petitioner was absconding
- 21.04.2026: Anticipatory bail application dismissed
- 22.06.2026: Present Criminal Petition (Crl.P. No. 4584 of 2026) filed under Section 482 BNSS before the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, arguing that:
- The allegations were based on a confessional statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act
- There was no independent evidence linking the petitioner to the offence
- The petitioner was presumed innocent until proven guilty
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused to the police, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, can be relied upon to deny pre-arrest bail to another accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2020 (11) SCC 648) to argue that adverse antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail
- Cited P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC Online SC 1157), particularly Para 53(iv), which holds that confessional statements made to police are inadmissible and cannot be used to implicate another co-accused
- Contended that the petitioner was entitled to the presumption of innocence
For the Respondent
- Argued that the petitioner was absconding and had not cooperated with the investigation
- Relied on the confessional statement of Accused No. 1 to implicate the petitioner
- Emphasized the gravity of the offence under the Excise Act
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal principles governing the admissibility of confessional statements under the Evidence Act and their relevance at the bail stage. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, which laid down the following key principles:
"27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, 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."
"53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. 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. In other words, 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."
The Court observed that the petitioner's implication was solely based on the confessional statement of Accused No. 1, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It held that such statements cannot be relied upon to deny bail, as they are per se inadmissible and cannot be used to implicate another co-accused. The Court also reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that adverse antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following stringent conditions:
- The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for the like sum each
- The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm until the filing of the charge sheet
- The petitioner shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission
- The petitioner shall not commit any offence in the future
- The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as required
- The petitioner shall not influence or threaten any witness
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confessional Statements Under Section 25 Evidence Act Are Inadmissible
- No reliance at bail stage: Courts cannot deny bail based on confessional statements made to police, as these are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act
- No implication of co-accused: Such statements cannot be used to implicate another co-accused, either at the bail stage or during trial
- Strict adherence to Evidence Act: The judgment reinforces that Sections 25, 26, 28, and 29 of the Evidence Act must be strictly followed, leaving no room for exceptions
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Adverse Antecedents
- Presumption of innocence: The Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and this presumption must guide bail decisions
- Balanced approach: While adverse antecedents may be considered, they cannot be the sole ground for denying bail
- Judicial discretion: Courts must weigh all factors, including the nature of the allegations, evidence, and the accused's conduct, before denying bail
Stringent Bail Conditions as a Safeguard
- Compliance with investigation: Courts may impose conditions requiring the accused to cooperate with the investigation, such as regular appearances before the police
- Geographical restrictions: Conditions like not leaving the state without permission may be imposed to ensure the accused's availability
- Non-interference: Courts may prohibit the accused from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence to protect the integrity of the investigation
