VASANTHI versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1200 · Decided: 04-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 : 
c 
Sections 18(/), 21(4)-Power of court to grant bail-Restrictions on-
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-
E 
Confessional statement not recorded in accordance with Section 18(/) cannot 
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 
_. 
F the appellant woulc1 ·.1dulge in similar offence of an organized crime if she is 
.-
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. 
~ 
~· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2004 of the Andhra Pradesh 
I 
' 
H 
1200 
---
V ASANTHI v. STA TE OF A.P. 
1201 
High Court in Crl.P. No. 4129 of 2004. 
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. 
The following Order of'the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
The appellant was arrested on 21st February, 20004 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, 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 
A 
B 
c 
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 
is sought to be established that the appellant knowingly lent her car to 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.