SC Clarifies Law on Using Accused's Section 161 CrPC Statements Against Co-Accused at Bail Stage

In a significant ruling arising from the Andhra Pradesh Excise Policy scandal, the Supreme Court of India clarified that statements made by an accused under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used against a co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.

Key Takeaways

• Statements under Section 161 CrPC, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, cannot be relied upon to determine the bail of a co-accused.

• Only confessional statements that meet the requirements of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act—i.e., admissible, proven, implicating both the maker and the co-accused, and made during a joint trial—can be considered, and only at trial, not at bail stage.

• The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, found fault with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, which had partially relied on such confessions to deny anticipatory bail.

• The Court reiterated that exculpatory statements by an accused lack credibility, particularly when the accused does not testify under Section 315 CrPC, as such statements cannot be cross-examined.

Legal Position Reaffirmed

The Court systematically clarified the application of Sections 17 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, holding:

• A confession made to police is inadmissible under Section 25.

• An admission is admissible only against the maker.

• A statement by an accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be treated the same as a witness statement.

• Such statements may only be used to contradict or re-examine the person who made them, not to implicate others.

Important Doctrinal Clarifications

• Confessional statements, even if implicating co-accused, cannot be relied upon at bail stage due to the inadmissibility under Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act.

• The Court relied on established precedent including Bhuboni Sahu, Kashmira Singh, and Pakala Narayana Swami, emphasizing that only confessions that are admissible, proven, and jointly implicate the maker and co-accused can be considered—and only at trial.

• Statements by persons likely to be arrayed as accused must be treated cautiously, especially during an ongoing investigation.

On Political Bias as a Ground for Bail

The Court acknowledged that political vendetta or bias may be considered, but cannot be the sole ground to grant anticipatory bail.

Case Citation: Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan

Statutes Discussed: Section 161 & 162 CrPC; Sections 17–30 of the Indian Evidence Act