9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Bail application rejection based on the provisions of Section 21(4) of The Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001 - Admissibility of confessional statements made to the Police Officer/I.O. - Interpretation of Section 21(4) regarding the likelihood of committing an offense under the Act after grant of bail Analysis: The appellant was arrested for involvement in an offense under Section 120-B read with other sections and The Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001. The High Court rejected her bail plea based on the prima facie attraction of Section 3(2) of the Act and observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe in her guilt and likelihood to commit an offense while on bail. The main allegation was that she lent her car for the commission of the offense. The charge sheet relied on her confession to the Investigating Officer and the confessional statement of the co-accused. However, the confessional statement made to the Police Officer/I.O. cannot be proved as evidence unless made before a Superintendent of Police as per the Act. The evidence against the appellant was not strong, and her association with organized criminals did not conclusively prove her guilt under Section 21(4) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the restrictions on granting bail should not be overly stringent. It was noted that the Court should consider the likelihood of the accused committing an offense under the Act while on bail, not any offense in general. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the culpability of the accused and their involvement in organized crime. The Court should focus on broad probabilities rather than meticulous evidence weighing. In this case, the probability of conviction was not strong, especially when excluding the confessional statements. The appellant had already spent considerable time in prison, and there was no strong indication that she would commit a similar offense if released on bail. Therefore, the High Court's order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
|
