Confessional Statements of Co-Accused Cannot Be Basis to Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Father Accused in POCSO & SC/ST Atrocities Case

“Prima Facie, Provisions of the SC/ST Act Do Not Apply Where Both Accused and Victim Belong to the Same Community” —  Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ganta Guravaiah alias Guravaiah (A5), the father of the minor victim, who was booked under various charges including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi observed that “prima facie, the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act has no application to the appellant,” especially as both the complainant and the accused belong to the same community. The Court also held that the learned Special Court had erred in denying anticipatory bail based merely on co-accused confessions, which are inadmissible at the bail stage.

The case arose from an FIR registered on 19 April 2025 at Srikalahasti Police Station (FIR No.75 of 2025) under a range of serious provisions: Sections 366A, 342, 354A, 506, 509, 109 IPC; Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act; Sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act; and Sections 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The alleged offence was said to have occurred on 14 May 2024, but the complaint was lodged almost a year later by the victim.

Guravaiah, the appellant, was arrayed as Accused No.5. His anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Special Court for POCSO cases at Chittoor on 1 July 2025, prompting the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

“Confession of Co-Accused Cannot Form Basis for Bail Refusal”

The Special Court had relied on the confession of A1 and A4 recorded during investigation, which mentioned A5’s involvement. However, the High Court categorically held:

“Confession alleged to be made by co-accused shall not be taken into consideration during the proceedings for bail. It shall be considered only during trial.”

Justice Chakravarthi invoked Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and reiterated the long-standing principle that confessions made by a co-accused are not admissible as substantive evidence for determining bail applications.

“Same Community Exempts Application of SC/ST Act Provisions”

The High Court underlined a pivotal legal point — that both the complainant and the appellant belonged to the same Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the protective provisions of the SC/ST Act could not be invoked absent caste-based targeting or hostility.

“The present appellant/A5 is none other than father of the victim/complainant… They belong to the same community. Therefore, prima facie the provisions relating to the alleged offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act may not be applicable to the appellant.”

This distinction played a decisive role in holding that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act — which ordinarily prohibits anticipatory bail — would not apply in this case.

“Delay in Lodging FIR and Absence of Allegation Against Father”

The Court also noted that the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly one year from the date of the alleged incident and that the report did not attribute any specific role or overt act to the appellant.

“The report presented by the victim does not contain any overt acts attributed against the appellant/A5 or his role in the offence in any manner.”

This, according to the Court, further weakened the case for denying anticipatory bail.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala [2024 LawSuit (SC) 704], which carved out a narrow window for entertaining anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act where the accused demonstrates a clear absence of legal ingredients required to invoke the Act.

Quoting the apex court, Justice Chakravarthi noted: “If all the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are borne out from the complaint, then the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable to the accused.”

But in this case, such ingredients were clearly missing.

Court’s Final Observations and Conditional Bail Grant

Finding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the investigation had been completed, and no direct accusation was levelled against A5, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered that he be released on anticipatory bail.

“On account of peculiar facts… which would prima facie show that the provisions under SC/ST (POA) Act has no application to the appellant, application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is maintainable.”

The Court directed A5 to appear before the Special Court within 15 days and execute a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties. Conditions were also imposed preventing him from intimidating the victim or her family, or leaving the country without permission.

The High Court’s ruling provides critical judicial clarification on two key legal principles: first, that anticipatory bail may be granted in SC/ST Act cases when the statutory ingredients are not satisfied; and second, that co-accused confessions cannot substitute for prima facie evidence at the bail stage. This judgment reaffirms the need for courts to scrutinize misuse of stringent laws and protect individual liberty where procedural and substantive justice so demands.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025