VASANTHIversusSTATE OF A.P.

A                                    VASANTHI
                                        v.
                                   STATE OF A.P.
                                                                                       '
                                    MAY 4, 2005

B           [P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]


          Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 :
                                                                                        --
          Sections 18(/), 21(4)-Power of court to grant bail-Restrictions on-
c Accused charged uls 3(4) of the Act and Section 120-B rlw Sections 364(A)
    and 341. /PC-Allegation against accused that she lent her car to be used in
    the offence commiked by other accused-Confession to 1.0.-Bail rejected by          ....
    Court of Session ri.d by High Court observing that it would be reasonably
    possible t~ conclu~~ that there were no grounds for believing that acc~sed
D   was not guilty of offence and that she was not likely to commit any offence
    while on bail--Held: 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-
    Confessional statement not recorded in accordance with Section 18(/) cannot
E   be proved as evidence-Applying the probability test to the/acts 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, if confessiOnal statements are left out of consideration-So
                                                                                           _.
    also, the material on record does not justify the conclusion at this stage that
    the appellant woulc1 ·.1dulge in similar offence of an organized crime if she is    .-
F
    released on bail~he has been in prison for about I 5 months so far-In.the
    circumstances, the order of the High Court is set aside and it is directed that
    the appellant be released on bail.

         Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
G   JT (2005) 4 SC 123, relied on.

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 668-                     ...: ~
    669 of 2005.
                                                                                       ~·I'
          From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2004 of the Andhra Pradesh
H                                        1200
                               VASANTHI v. STATE OF A.P.                        1201
      High Court in Crl.P. No. 4129 of 2004.                                             A
           P.S. Mishra, Amitash C. Mishra, T.H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv
      K. Jha and Manu Shanker Mishra with him for the Appellant.

            Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.
                                                                                         B
            The following Order of'the Court was delivered :
---                                      ORDER

            Leave granted.

             The appellant was arrested on 21st February, 20004 for involvement in
                                                                                         c
      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, 200 l
      (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 D
      to grant bail on the ground that though not Section 3(4), Section 3(2) of the
      Act is prima facie attracted and threfore 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 E
      of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
      The request for bail cannot be accepted".

            Aggrieved by, this Order tht: 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            F
      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.

            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
      1.0. and also the confessional statement made by the co-accused by which it        G
                                                                          to
      is sought to be established that the appellant knowingly lent her car facilitate
      the commission of offence of abducting the boy.

 ""         It must be noted that the confessional statement made to the Police
      Officer/1.0. cannot be proved as evidenct. The Act contains special provision
                                                                                         H
    1202                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A   making the confessional statement admissible notwithstanding anything
    contained in the Cr.P.C. or the Indian Evidence Act provided the confession         i
    is made before a Police Officer not below the rank of 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,
B   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 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
c   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 v. State of Maharashtra and
D   Anr., reported in JT (2005) 4 SC 123. Justice S.B. Sinha speaking for three
    Judge aench 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
E          that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order
           granted 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
F          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
G          crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at the time of considering
           the application for grant of b&.il shall consider the question from the
           angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea ...."
                                                                                            ,...
         Again in para 55 of the judgment, it was pointed out that the wording
    of Section 21(4) does not lead to the conciusion that the Court must arrive
H
                            VASANTHI v. ST ATE OF A.P.                       1203
    at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence A
    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 futuro
    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 B


-
    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 C
    in nature. It will not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial
    court would then be 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 D
    to say, is not bright, when we leave out of consideration the confessional
    statements. So also, the materials 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 E
    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 1st Addi.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appeals are
    accordingly allowed.

    R.P.                                                        Appeals allowed.