Supreme Court Upholds High Court Denial of Anticipatory Bail, Clarifies Limits on Use of Co‑accused Confessions at Bail Stage

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard Special Leave Petitions challenging a common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati which had denied anticipatory bail to former public servants in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 registered at CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The petitions arose from allegations of large‑scale manipulation in the State excise procurement process and related corruption offences under the IPC (as reclassified under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail and upheld the High Court's order. It held that the High Court had rightly found "more than a prima facie case" against the petitioners and that custodial interrogation could be necessary to further the investigation. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail was "not granted as a matter of routine" and emphasised that political vendetta or mala fides, while relevant, "by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, Section 30 itself makes it clear that the whole legal exercise by virtue of which this provision of law can be made applicable, depends upon the proving of confession before a court which makes it into an admissible one in order to implicate the other accused provided the confession given by such person is established with full strength on the basis of other materials pertaining to the attendant circumstances. It would necessarily mean that mere confession alone will not be adequate or sufficient to implicate other persons.” The Court also quoted the High Court's view that "the investigating officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion in a case containing severe allegations."

Background

The FIR reproduced portions of an internal enquiry and alleged that the excise procurement scheme favoured select new brands while marginalising established brands, causing diversion of products and alleged manipulative transactions. The complaint, forwarded by the Principal Secretary to Government, reported suppression of established brands, "unfair discrimination in allocation of OFS" and recommended referral to a specialised agency. The State alleged misappropriation and suspicious transactions running into hundreds of crores and claimed kickbacks totalling approximately Rs.3,200 crore. The petitioners, who earlier held high public office and had retired, asserted political vendetta and submitted that there lacked any prima facie case to deny anticipatory bail; they also stressed cooperation with investigators and asserted complaints of coercive interrogation tactics, for which the High Court had granted limited relief permitting a lawyer to be present during interrogation.

The High Court examined documentary material, sales and market‑share tabulations and statements and concluded prima facie involvement of the petitioners in a criminal conspiracy, holding that custodial interrogation was essential. The Supreme Court reviewed statutory principles on confessions and admissions, particularly Sections 24–30 of the Evidence Act and the scope of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 162 CrPC. It held that a confession by one accused implicating another under Section 30 could not be relied upon at the bail stage unless the confession was already shown to be relevant and admissible and duly proved, and that police statements of accused persons ordinarily could not be used against co‑accused at the anticipatory bail stage. The Court cautioned investigators against "third degree" methods, directed that investigation should proceed fairly and transparently, and observed that if the petitioners were arrested and later applied for regular bail, such applications would be considered on their own merits.

The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of without grant of anticipatory bail. The Court noted that if petitioners faced ill‑treatment they could approach the High Court for relief, and clarified that police remand applications and any subsequent regular bail matters would be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 725; Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7532‑7534 of 2025 Case Title: P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel; Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel (appearing for petitioners P. Krishna Mohan Reddy and K. Dhananjaya Reddy) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel; Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel; Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Counsel (for the State of Andhra Pradesh)