Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Confessions in Anticipatory Bail Cases: P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 725

Judges: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

Can a confession by a co-accused be used against another accused during an anticipatory bail hearing? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving alleged corruption in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL). The Court clarified the extent to which confessional statements can be considered when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail. This judgment emphasizes the importance of fair investigation and the rights of the accused, setting a significant precedent for future cases.

In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 725), a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, addressed the legality and extent to which confessional statements of co-accused persons can be relied upon during the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail. The court clarified the circumstances under which such statements can be considered, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial investigation.

Case Background

The case originated from Crime No. 21 of 2024, registered at the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners were accused of offenses under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations pertained to irregularities and corruption within the APSBCL, including suppression of popular brands, preferential allocation of orders, and manipulation of the procurement system.

The First Information Report (FIR) highlighted several issues:

• ✓ Suppression of established popular brands and unfair discrimination in the allocation of orders.
• ✓ Favorable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands, violating existing norms.
• ✓ Shifting the procurement system to a manual process, allowing manipulation of orders.

Based on these findings, the CID was requested to investigate the matter.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• ✓ Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023): These sections deal with criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
• ✓ Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: These sections pertain to offenses related to corruption by public servants.
• ✓ Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows the court to consider a confession made by one person affecting himself and some other person when they are being tried jointly for the same offense. The section states:
  

  “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 some 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.”

• ✓ Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the police officer to examine the accused of an offence or named in the first information report and may record his statement.
• ✓ Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be signed by the person making it or used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• ✓ The petitioners, former public servants, claimed they were falsely implicated due to political vendetta.
• ✓ There was no prima facie case against them to justify the denial of anticipatory bail.
• ✓ They were cooperating with the investigating agency, and their statements had been recorded.
• ✓ The investigating agency was allegedly using coercive methods to extract confessional statements.
• ✓ The Competition Commission had previously examined the issue and found no wrongdoing.

State of Andhra Pradesh’s Arguments:

• ✓ There was a strong prima facie case against the petitioners.
• ✓ The investigation was at a crucial stage, with alleged misappropriation exceeding Rs. 3,000 Crore.
• ✓ Custodial interrogation might be necessary to uncover further details.
• ✓ Granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and potentially harm public interest.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. 1. Whether the High Court erred in denying anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
2. 2. The extent to which confessional statements of co-accused persons can be relied upon during the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail.
3. 3. Whether the investigating agency adopted third-degree methods or exerted undue pressure on witnesses or co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Case Laws:

• ✓ Bhuboni Sahu v. R, 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12 (Privy Council): Explained the significance of the expression “may take into consideration” used in Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ K. Hashim v. State of T.N., (2005) 1 SCC 237 (Supreme Court of India): Reinforced the principle that confessions do not amount to proof but are elements in considering other facts.
• ✓ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 (Supreme Court of India): reiterated the principles for considering confession.
• ✓ Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., (1952) 1 SCC 275 (Supreme Court of India): Explained when a confession may be taken into consideration against a co-accused.
• ✓ Periyaswami Moopan, In re, 1930 SCC OnLine Mad 86 (Madras High Court): Discussed the conditions under which a confession can be used to support a conviction.
• ✓ Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B., (2002) 7 SCC 334 (Supreme Court of India): Specified that a confession cannot be considered where it was not relevant or admissible.
• ✓ Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 10 SCC 586 (Supreme Court of India): Specified that a confession cannot be considered where it was not relevant or admissible.
• ✓ Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 337 (Supreme Court of India): Held that confessional statements cannot be used against a co-accused for framing charges without other evidence.
• ✓ Queen Empress v. Jagat Chandra Mali, ILR (1894) 22 Cal 50 (Calcutta High Court): Joint trial refers to the one provided under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
• ✓ Naresh v. R, AIR 1938 Cal 479 (Calcutta High Court): Joint trial refers to the one provided under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
• ✓ Badri Prasad Prajapati v. State of M.P., (2005) Cr.L.J. 1856 (Madhya Pradesh High Court): Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial, and any confession admissible thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by the courts.
• ✓ Dipak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547 (Supreme Court of India): Before a confession is taken into consideration against a co -accused, the said confession has to be duly proved against the maker.
• ✓ Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr., AIR 1978 SC 1025 (Supreme Court of India): A person who is accused of an offence or named in the first information report, can be examined by the police and his statement may be recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
• ✓ Mahabir Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 1331 (Supreme Court of India): As per Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be signed by the person making it or used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made .
• ✓ Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, (1939) PC 47 (Privy Council): Explained that a confession is a statement admitting the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence, whereas an admission is only in respect of a gravely incriminating fact.
• ✓ Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 7 SCC 231 (Supreme Court of India): Confessional statement contemplated under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, must be both relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ Chintamani Das v. State, AIR 1970 Ori 100 (Orissa High Court): An admission by one accused cannot be used against another co -accused.
• ✓ Sohar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 Pat 448 (Patna High Court): An admission by one accused cannot be used against another co -accused.
• ✓ Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2411 (Supreme Court of India): Statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence.
• ✓ Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 670 (Supreme Court of India): The court is duty-bound to consider all the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during trial and then would be entitled to grant bail to an accused.
• ✓ Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in (2022)17 SCC 391 (Supreme Court of India): It would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail.

Legal Provisions:

• ✓ Section 3 of the Evidence Act: Defines “Evidence.”
• ✓ Section 5 of Evidence Act: Only those facts or facts in issue which are considered relevant under Chapter II of the Act would be admissible as evidence.
• ✓ Section(s) 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act: Deals with the relevancy and admissibility of ‘confessions’ as evidence.
• ✓ Section 24 of the Evidence Act: Provides when a confession would be relevant by laying down a negative rule of relevancy and prescribing the general parameters when a confession would be considered irrelevant; namely when such confession is caused by either threat, inducement or promise.
• ✓ Section(s) 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act: Exception to the aforesaid general rule of relevancy of confessions.
• ✓ Section 28: Provides that where although any threat, inducement or promise was made to cause a confession, yet if such confession was made after the cessation, removal or eradication of such improper influence or impression, then such confession would be relevant.
• ✓ Section 29: Expands the test of relevancy by prescribing a positive rule of when a confession would continue to be relevant and provides that a confession made under one particular type of promise i.e., a promise of secrecy or made as a result of any deception, intoxication or by one’s own volition in response to any question, would not render such confession irrelevant.
• ✓ Section 25 of the Evidence Act: Provides that even if such confession is not hit by Section 24 i.e., it is not the result of any threat, inducement or promise and thus, considered relevant, still such confession would be inadmissible if it was made to a police officer.
• ✓ Section 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act: Carves out an exception to this. Section 26 provides that, a confession made by the accused to persons other than police officers would be inadmissible, if it was made whilst he was in police custody, unless such confession was made in the presence of a magistrate.
• ✓ Section 27: Only permits limited use of such statement only to the extent that a fact is discovered pursuant to disclosure statement which would connect the accused with the crime with authorship of concealment.
• ✓ Section(s) 17 read with 21 of the Evidence Act: The general principle is that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker only and cannot be used against any other person.
• ✓ Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.: Accused’s right to be a competent witness.
• ✓ Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973: Specifies the joint trial.
• ✓ Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act: Specifies the cross-examination of witness.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Bhuboni Sahu v. R [CITATION]: Used to explain the significance of the expression “may take into consideration” in Section 30 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that confessions do not amount to proof but are elements in considering other facts.
• ✓ Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P [CITATION]: Relied upon to explain when a confession may be taken into consideration against a co-accused, stressing the need for other evidence before considering the confession.
• ✓ Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani [CITATION]: Cited to affirm that a person accused of an offense can be examined by the police and their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
• ✓ Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [CITATION]: Used to differentiate between a confession and an admission, clarifying that a confession admits the offense, while an admission admits a gravely incriminating fact.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the severity of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, and the need to prevent any hindrance to the ongoing inquiry. The Court emphasized that while political vendetta could be a relevant consideration, it was not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail if a prima facie case existed. The Court also clarified the limitations on the admissibility and use of confessional statements, underscoring the importance of adhering to the principles of fair investigation and protecting the rights of the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio: The court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Admissibility of Confessional Statements

Flowchart:

Start –> Is the statement a confession? –> Yes –> Was it made to a police officer? –> Yes –> Inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act –> No –> Was it made in police custody without a magistrate present? –> Yes –> Inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act –> No –> Admissible, but must be proven –> Can it be used against a co-accused? –> Yes, if conditions of Section 30 are met (joint trial, incriminates maker, duly proved) –> No –> Cannot be used against co-accused –> End

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh clarifies the extent to which confessional statements of co-accused persons can be relied upon during anticipatory bail hearings. The Court emphasized that while such statements can be considered, they must be approached with caution and cannot be the sole basis for implicating a co-accused. The judgment also underscores the importance of fair and impartial investigations, cautioning against the use of coercive methods. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future cases involving anticipatory bail and the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected while upholding the integrity of the investigative process.