IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Between : TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULYJ jc;I,i§ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: t`&` .- q,, I.:i HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO '¥€ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7324 OF 2025 Thota Anjl- Banu, S/o. Subba Raju, Male, aged 32 years, R/o. D. No.4-53, Vinayaka Street, Patha Pattiseema, polavaram MandaI, Eluru District (Ernst West Godavari Dl-strict). .. ]PetI-tiOner/Accused-3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...Respondent PetI-lion under Section 482 of Bharatl-ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.133/2024 on the file of Kakaluru Police Station, in the interest of justice. Counsel forthe Petitioner : sri Gandham S.R. Prasad Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.P.Akila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER-- -,5-,_ I , -=xp-g.I ` :,=\,,_~. ._ 7 ORDER: The-Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.133 of 2023 of Kaikaluru Police Station, EIuru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under sections 468, 471 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity {the lPC]), 2. The case of the prosecution is that on o2.09.2023, in Kaikaluru, the Accused No.1/Gantasala Mohan Krishna from Srungavarappadu Village fraudulently purchased an insurance polI'Cy from ACKO General Insurance Company by paying Rs.2,471/-through Amazon Pay using Mobile No.9441171020, falsely declaring the vehicle No.AP 39 TB 7791 as a Maruti Alto K10. The policy was issued, but during verificatI'On On the Parl'vahan p9rtaI, the company found that the vehicle was actually a Bolero Goods Vehicle, which is not eligible for coverage and hence cancelled the polI'Cy. Later, a fatal accident involving the same vehicle occurred on 30.ll.2023, resulting in the death of yarlagadda Nancharayya. A case was registered in crime No.363 of 2023 under Section 304(A) of the lIPC'. The vi`ctimls family fI-led M,V.O.P.No.109 of 2024 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on the file of the Vijayawada District Court against the vehicle owner and insurance ` _ _ company. Upon receiving the summons, ACKO General Insurance Company confI'rmed that the policy had been cancelled due {o false information and alleged that the accused submitted forged documents, cheating the company, police and transport authorities. 3. Sri.Gandham S.R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case,- he I'S ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and it I'S urged tO grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.3. 4. Per confra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petI|tiOner iS enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it Its urged tO dismiss the baI'l application. 5. , Perusedtherecord. 6. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.3 are that with the active aid of Accused Nos.1 and 2, falsification of insurance policy was done {o cause damage to the Insurance Company. 7. As seen from the record, based on the confession of Accused N9S.1 to 3 added in this case except that confession no material record is available to implicate the Accused No.3 in this case. pe{i{ioner/Accused No.3 has got a permanent residence in Polavaram Mandal. 8. ln this context, i{ is apposite to referthe judgment Of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at Para Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv) it is held as under: t£27. To some extent, the petit-loners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political b-las or mala tides 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 lit-IgatiOnS, more Particularly, criminal prosecut-IOnS 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. 45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and construed devoid of its context. 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. 46. . goth lndresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question df g'rani of bail, it is the sta{erien{s of witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage .of grant of anticipatory or regular bail. 47. This is because a statement of an accused under Section 161 of the cr.p.c stands bn a different footing from a police statement of any ordinary witness. Statements of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admission or a confession cannot be looked into qua another co-accused, as to say otherw-ISe WOuld be to ignore the substantive provisions of Section(s) 17, . / 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 S` 2a1`,,.,H2^5n^a^ndH2_P..o_I.i_h_enEvid?nce 4?i pad the well settled cannons of law of eavfd^e^n^:::^F?!_eJV_?_r: fh p afo,rp?air Poe_s -;;i -i;-;I;,--;iuer:u{;;:toatue'*vnvt u:i ?A:oa.chcauI:eH#.^u,:_d_er^S^e_ction 161 of the Cr.P.C isle;6uiii{;;-;; ;i;vr:,'u;hi:i We Shall discuss later. 5QO=rti^nEIVReln ^ythLe^re^_thne^P?lice.,.statemept _of an accused person under saeycr:iI:nna+1^6n1,?: thh^e+.€_r: p:p:,is__ppifher.an , ;d-in i:Siof; a n:;v;;:nufersuslio-:: 'i. eu.I,'%tci's ?nx+c^ulLPPt+Py^i_n..n|€t!r_3 a,nd , rot..inp_u lpatory, s;drri -:{=iofri;;i; -c-:nvI ::-Fdolk£d -InatnO^,!!^trdhe_:?^u_rf_s _p_rJylf_or tP.e I-IrP.ited Py rb6:; i; i;ir-I-;i I;;;utrfeu:faWn5c;out"fihue a^c^c^::^e^dA P_e_r:_0_fl_ q_u3 ,the^alle.Patio.n_s.-A_ri excu I pi{oir ap;li;;' 'svtrit`:;v#ntu6;I :n ?Sn::^e^:Ape:s_o_I,_u_Pd_er Section I 61 of the C;. P.C 'J-hi;i -at--t-i:I I:-a';;ii#= iT Prl!ca:teas+^a_n^o!!e:r^ c_o:I aLC::u,:_ed,,. can net be i.eii5d--;is'n ,-`h;:;eliu';'e-c:I::Ce sr:cQhn=:tfatnefm?nn:ni,Sn A:^O! , h fttt^3y__tP sL _Sa.fegH.ardi; --drnJ rrfr6g;;;'t`h':i wa-i;ff;oicn r^e^snpfe^c^t^:^o!_ir.:_u_,Ip?fpry _st.a,tement_s -IP_-the form-i;a -;; -;JriIS:irOr:: I:r ?,:r:f^e_s_:.ialo^n_s_rn=!elf_ tPe Eyid,ence Act_. The fundiine;ial -gin;;:;''-#'vc;Ii;inV:I ju^!s^pnr^u+d3_n:|eL !S_ i_h_at_ a statement of ere aCCu:6d--i:;s;;I ':-:;'n:i ;I:";:eat a^g^a!n^:: I a_n_P!h_?_r, _c?:aPCuSed. Person. _The I im itea-ix'5i-riti-:; i:I i; i: :f-or::5a;d gh:Qnerr^a!fP!.n;c^inP!: i:_!n_C_u!P_3tPry co.nfesP-Iq.nS!.Wheri i'h-5-;;Ju::i u;i;;::nul;n hrsn^ctohnafres^s!o::I,:±^a^talemeTnLt_nof:_Pn ly?d a? its. 'P ii.-drgivi i ;It-i;i":Iiuo i:#t:i aanvontlh1:nrardC?:aCDCLu.:Le_d : I T^h_e._ _ _ra,1io;ale.be.Pin_d tit ;sa iiisfrt:a -':;;:;#:nuLCaOs enxaprl.a!nne^df !n:^B_P.T_b~o_I:!| S£Pu, (supra), is th9t a;--i;dr;-;S':i:; i:;`v#nr:::usaeod pnefrsfohna otfrf:sh o^wfn hg:u^ilt_a_ff_3:d_s_ :3§mf s?rf Pf c!.edibility -drr--s-i;c'ti;; ' in"vsvuui;# o^f`,^tfi:__i,r_u_tP _pfl _his ?orfession__ against otrfi;i---:s_-dr:ir' I:;'rii'::JlfFpui; eoxvcr:I,Pnaat+o^%, s^t+a^tte^m_e^n_i. iS| a_n_ aftrorft i? the aforeS=id--irin-Jpl'€'.I I 'i;;i, A:; erxrcunlp^ato_ry._ s_I?feTePt ?i 9P aCPuSed Person-i;ii;r rS:ir;or;'16j'u:i tu;i Fihr=p -.I:i nc^abn ^ofn!yh ^be^ Jo_p!sdal i_nt_?_f_or th e i i rr ited..ir ;iiie-;i-:it;e; VCJII iv:g L::i tthheo satrarn,p.eaHOf itfh+eh ^ac^c^u^:.e^d^ alps:s_o_n_ _q_u p i.he aI I'56oft-I-drrfe -:r-;;;:;%t;;ffci:6 t^hfe oa^c_c+I_s_ed^,, il tfllenaCC_use_d_Ch.poses to be exi;i;;a--a; 'a -;iti::S':I ;nu{u:;#s o^f^s:c:±_n,:31_|5_ pf _tP=, Pr.P.C. However, such -i;;iifet-i; :;ii;;:;{I -I;-::;aOr ?:_:i_ ipp!!_c_at_e_s ?mother c.o-accus_ed berson ca;-'i;---n'd i;_a-i;'i;I 'i:";dI'i:i unpa:,:r2y :h.en nc^o+u [s^ a+s_ ^a.g_aJinLS:_ SyCh Cd-aCCySe! aS S_u;ir :{ir;ir;€nt~;bviirgr nHaat.ulr:A :a+n^nLO: ^bP..:i,Ss_t~e_d : _b¥,_ cr,o.s?-PX Pm inatio_n_ i-f -:i Ji-i;:;;S'=d w;;;::'n d£enc!inheas.i:,.b^e_:.^¥it^n`:A:i_ipLi_h_3 _t[i_a,I in terTS Of Sictiir'51-;vdr{hv: Crr:;v€: , aRn.d Pecar!_s.3_ P,:Ph_ PxculPatOry..Statepr_ent has no ;;i-Ji-iilitj. 53. `l:, ,\F{p,ff_i_h_e 9P_?ye ex,po-sitipn .of law, the fdII6-iri-n-i -:-#erges: (!v4_¥h|:_r3 _.Such Po!-lee.. stPteTen{ of an ac;u=iJ-I;-6onfessionaI ?tt.at`:The,rrt, t^h3^r!2_o_u_r:_o_f_ _Se_clt_ipn(s)?5 pnd 26 res;iitiJ:I-y rill :vpil;-;i'tv; laa'Il if+s :Rig_o_u.r-Lf:I CLO_rfe^:SiPn al, Sta^t?in6nt_ 9f an aCC;st:i iril-I -;'n I; I:;ardr#-I;:;:Ieal;i it_:_s. .:n_3_i _h_it_lby S,pctipp(s)_ 2_4_ or ?5 respectivil; -i-;;-i-: i~n-tu-;:''ff{;'ut;i P:ov^!s:horn :. ,:f.JS^ec^tio_n_(,s_) _2P: _2P _and, 29. of the Evide_nce Act -;6:i6;ti;:I-;. l^n_a_t|h_e_r_..y_prq_s, a police. sta.teprept of an accused -wi;i-c-ir~i;i-nrtvfr€' vf:;yh; of a c_3ff_e_s_:i_o_! _is .Per, ?e inaPmissible and no relia;6-;-vi-ira{:;iJ;;I;i;I bue p!:::d ^o^n_,s^u_c~fl_?I_3te_r3,nts eit,her at the sf age of iiiI ;;--d~Jr;;i i;iJ:'5i;c-e sQu^C^ht:^C_OPfEeS_:iL2_a_air s=t_PtemePtS. ere renqer-ed inadmiSsfriii--ab;| --ii-rt;:'v:if s^:.c^t:i,on_._2_f p_f th? Evidence.Act, _the provision of i;i{;;;-i;w~oJuldv i;Oof :i a_v_a_i!,. _a_a_PL _nP_ _re.I.lan,Ce Cap. be Placed On Such COnf;:stdwidr :i:i-:;:;i v:fI :n accused to implicate another co-accused." 9. The Hon'bleApex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan Reddysupra, held thata confessing statement of co-accused per se inadmissI'ble and no relevance whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through t-_-I bail inasmuch as such confession Statements are rendered by Virtue Of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short {the Act'). The provision of section 30 of [the Act' would be of no avail, and nO reliance can be placed on such a statement as a cause of action to implicate another co-accused.. 10. Considering the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, his alleged role in this case and the Validity Of the CO-accused confession, this court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail {o the petitioner/Accused No.3 with certain stringent conditions. ll. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of her arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. Thepetitioner/AccusedNo.3shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e-.,-on <-,i-tr_ L=-` `'`` ` ` To, 1. 2. 3. 4. CVSS I - 7 every saturday between 1000 am and 500 p.m"I ® filing of the charge sheet. v. The petitl-oner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the djstrl-ct limI-tS Without the express perml-ssjon from the stall-on House Offi,cer concerned. //TRUE COPY//For ,I ASSsSSEDT:iTiOTffiA:TIERPRfulR /, The statl'on House officer, KaI'kaluru poll'ce station, Eluru District. one cc to SRI GANDHAM SR PRASAD Advocate [opuc] Two ccs to publlc prosecutor, HI'gh Court ofAndhra pradesh [ouT] One spare copy HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED : 22/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7324 of 2025 ALLOWED