P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025
The Supreme Court held that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by one accused cannot be used against a co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
21 May 2025
Judges
Justice J.B. Pardiwala ⦁ Justice R. Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The Case arose from an Excise Policy scandal causing a ₹3,000 crore loss to the Andhra Pradesh exchequer.
-
The FIR filed under Sections 409, 420, Prevention of Corruption Act.
-
The High Court denied anticipatory bail partly relying on co-accused statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
-
The Accused challenged the bail denial in the Supreme Court, arguing inadmissibility of such statements at bail stage.
Issues
-
Can statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by one accused be used against co-accused at bail stage?
-
What is the evidentiary value of exculpatory vs. inculpatory statements under Section 161?
-
How do Sections 25 and 30 of the Evidence Act apply to confessional statements made to police?
-
Is political vendetta alone sufficient for anticipatory bail?
-
How should courts treat police statements of persons who may later become accused?
Judgement
-
The Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by one accused cannot be used against co-accused at bail stage except in specific, proven trial circumstances.
-
The Statements can be exculpatory (limited use, not against co-accused) or inculpatory (admissions used only against maker; confessions inadmissible at bail unless proven at trial).
-
The High Court’s reliance on co-accused statements under Section 161 for bail was incorrect.
-
The Political vendetta alone does not justify bail unless case shown to be frivolous or baseless.
-
The Courts must verify whether person giving statement under Section 161 is accused or witness before using it in bail decisions.
Held
-
The Appeal against denial of anticipatory bail dismissed.
-
The Police statements of one accused cannot be used against co-accused at bail stage.
-
The Political bias alone insufficient for bail grant.
-
The Courts must carefully assess police statements during bail hearings.
Analysis
-
It Protects accused’s right to fair trial and limits misuse of police statements at pre-trial stage.
-
It Reinforces strict evidentiary standards for confessions and admissions.
-
It Prevents premature prejudgment based on untested investigative material.
-
It Balances investigation needs with constitutional protections.
-
It Sets threshold for considering political vendetta claims in bail matters.