A Co-Accused’s Police Statement Cannot Implicate Another Absent an Inculpatory Confession.

The petitions sought anticipatory bail for accused Nos. 4 and 3, respectively, in a Lokayukta case registered under Sections 7(a) and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The complaint alleged that police personnel demanded payments from truck drivers transporting sand; the complainant alleged that accused No. 3 reiterated a demand and instructed payment by PhonePe.

The prosecution relied on recordings and stated that money had been recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioners denied demanding money and argued, among other things, that the recordings required authentication and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been granted bail.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the alleged recordings, the recovery, and the risk of interference with the investigation.

The Court considered Sections 7(a) and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning public servants obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage

and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which anticipatory bail was sought.

It relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported as (2026) 7 SCC 311, for the principle that, for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, arrest is not automatic: the investigating officer must assess its necessity and comply with the statutory requirements under Section 35 of the BNSS.

The Court also relied on T. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 725, for the principle that a co-accused’s police statement cannot ordinarily be used as evidence against another accused, subject to the limited exception for an inculpatory confession.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, flight risk, likelihood of repeat offending or witness tampering, and the petitioners’ antecedents; it also noted that a bail hearing is not a mini-trial.

The Court considered the alleged recordings and video material but held that their authenticity and whether the voices belonged to the accused required examination by the competent authorities; those questions could not be conclusively resolved at the bail stage.

As to accused No. 4, the material identified by the prosecution was a statement by accused No. 1, which the Court held could not, by itself, be used against a co-accused.

The Court further noted that the petitioners were government servants whose presence could be secured, that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that they had no criminal antecedents.

Applying the BNSS arrest principles, it concluded that the alleged circumstances did not justify denying anticipatory bail.

Conditions included attendance before the investigating officer on the first and third Sundays of each month for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier; non-tampering with prosecution witnesses; cooperation with the investigation; regular appearance before the competent court; and refraining from committing further offences.

Breach could result in the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail.