SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vasanthi
Vs.
State of A.P.
Crl.A.Nos.668-669 of 2005
(P.Venkatarama Reddi and P.P.Naolekar JJ.)
04.05.2005
P.Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was arrested on 21st February, 2004 for involvement in an
offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 364(A), 341, IPC and Section
3(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001 (for
short 'the Act'). The charge-sheet has since been filed in the Court of IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. She moved the Sessions Court for bail and
on rejection, she moved the High Court. The High Court declined to grant bail
on the ground that though not Section 3(4), Section 3(2) of the Act is prima
facie attracted and therefore the provisions contained in Section 21(4) of the
Act limiting the powers of the Court to grant bail would apply. The High Court
observed that "it is not reasonably possible to conclude at this
stage there are no reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of
the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The
request for bail cannot be accepted."
3. Aggrieved by this Order the Special Leave Petition giving rise to the present
appeal has been filed. The main allegation against the appellant is that she
lent her car for being used in Carrying the kidnapped boy from Hyderabad to
Pune by the other accused including her daughter. It may be noted that
appellant's daughter has been released on bail by the High Court.
4. A perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that the material against the
appellant is mainly the confession said to have been made by her to the I.O.
and also the confessional statement made by the co-accused by which it is
sought to be established that the appellant knowingly lent her car to
facilitate the commission of offence of abducting the boy.
5. It must be noted that the confessional statement made to the Police Officer
/I.O. cannot be proved as evidence. The Act contains a special provision making
the confessional statement admissible notwithstanding anything contained in the
Cr.P.C. or the Indian Evidence Act provided the confession is made before a
Police Officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. The
confessional statements which are now sought to be relied upon in the charge
sheet are not those recorded in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Act by the
authorised officer. As far as the recovery of car is concerned, the same was seized
while it was at her residence. Whether under Section 27, any part of her
statement would be admissible is also not free from doubt. Learned counsel for
the State sought to contend that there are certain circumstances which throw
light on the appellant's association with A-1 and the other accused, who are
organized criminals. But, these circumstances by themselves may not lead to the
inference of guilt. What is required to be seen under Section 21(4) of the Act
is that the Court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence of committing organized
crime and that he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. A
provision in pari materia was construed by this Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in1.
Justice S.B. Sinha speaking for three Judge Bench observed thus:-
"49. We are, furthermore of the opinion that the restrictions on the power
of the court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the court, having
regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability
he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The
satisfaction of the court as regards his likelihood of not committing an
offence while on bail must be construed to mean an offence under the Act and
not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such an expansive
meaning is given, even likelihood of commission of an offence under Section 279
of the Indian Penal Code may debar the court from releasing the accused on
bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as
would lead to absurdity. What would further be necessary on the part of the
Court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the
commission of an organised crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at
the time of considering the application for grant of bail shall consider the
question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens
rea..."
6. Again in para 55 of the judgment, it was pointed out that the wording of
Section 21(4) does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a
positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under
the Act. As regards the second requirement, it was laid down "Similarly,
the court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his
committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must
be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to
predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider
this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his
propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed
the offence". It was again pointed out that "the duty of the court at
this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding
on the basis of broad probabilities. The evidence recorded by the High Court
while granting or rejecting bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature. It
will not have any bearing on the merit on the case and the trial court would
then he free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial
without in any manner being prejudiced thereby. If we apply the
probability test that has been propounded by this Court to the facts of the
present case it is difficult to reach a tentative conclusion that the appellant
in all probability will be convicted of the offence. Probability of conviction,
so to say, is not bright, when we leave out of consideration the confessional
statements. So also, the material on record does not justify the conclusion at
this stage that the appellant would indulge in similar offence of an organised
crime if she is released on bail. As already noticed, she has been in prison
for about 15 months so far. In the circumstances, we set aside the order
of the High Court and direct the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing
personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- and a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of
the Ist Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appeals are
accordingly allowed.
12005 (4) JT 123