Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chevireddy Mohith Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 October, 2025
APHC010332732025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6892/2025
Between:
CHEVIREDDY MOHITH REDDY, S/O. CHEVIREDDY BHASKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.1-4, THUMMALA GUNTA,
TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O. CID PS, REP. BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATHI.
2. THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, REP BY COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VMR LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') is filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.39, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 on the file of C.I.D Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B read with Sections 34 & 37 of Indian Penal Code, 2 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1) (b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').
2. The case of the Prosecution, in epitome, is as follows:
On 23.09.2024, Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, submitted a report, vide Memo No.Rev- 01/CPE/20/2024-VIG-IV, dated 20.09.2024 alleging certain irregularities in the formulation of liquor policy between 2019 and 2024 i.e., (i) suppression of established popular brands and unfair discrimination in allocation of Order for Supply (OFS) over a period of time leading to almost disappearance of some popular brands from the market, (ii) favourable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in violation of the existing norms by giving them undue market share and competitive advantage, and (iii) the procurement system was shifted to manual process, giving scope for manipulation of OFS system, against the previous system of automated OFS compromising the integrity or the process.
Based on the said report, the CID Police registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2024 on 23.09.2024, initially for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 120-B read with 34, 37 of IPC. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a memo was filed before the Court showing Accused Nos.1 to 29. Later another memo was filed showing Accused Nos.,30 to 39 and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of PC Act were also added.
It is alleged that Accused No.1 along with other Accused formed a Syndicate comprising Senior Bureaucrats of State, Politicians, their associates 3 and officials of Excise Department, and indulged in criminal conspiracy with Distillery owners, huge fraud for discontinuation of popular brands in the promotion of blue eyed brands and received kickbacks to a tune of 3,200 crores of rupees and thereby caused huge loss to the Government Exchequer.
The allegation levelled against the Petitioner / Accused No.39 is that, being the Chairman of Tirupati Urban Development Authority (for short 'TUDA'), by misusing his official position, he had arranged vehicles of TUDA for transportation of cash, which is generated from the liquor scam, to be distributed at the time of General Elections, 2024, from Hyderabad to different parts of Andhra Pradesh. Arguments advanced at the Bar:
3. Heard Sri C. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor for State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner:
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein, who is Accused No.39, being the son of Accused No.38/the then MLA was falsely roped into this case. It is submitted that, only due to political pressures, the present crime has been registered against the Petitioner and several other innocent persons through misuse of power by the Ruling Political Party. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, earlier, the Petitioner held the post of the Chairman for TUDA in the year 2023-24 and had also contested in General Elections, 2024 from Chandragiri Assembly Constituency. 4
(ii) It is argued that the Prosecution has not come up with specific reasons as to why custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required in this case. It is further submitted that they have filed the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner, vide memo dated 10.07.2025 informing the pending cases against the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the investigation in this case appears to have been completed since the charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner on 15.09.2025. It is submitted that the Petitioner has surrendered his vehicle to TUDA due to Code of Conduct for the ensuing General Elections, 2024.
(iii) It is also pointed out that the Investigating Officer says that the log book of the subject vehicle has been manipulated however, the Chairman of TUDA is not empowered to maintain the log book. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency has issued a notice to the Petitioner for his appearance, thereafter, the Petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application before the Special Court, which was dismissed. It is argued that the Investigating Officer is using his authority under Section 179 of BNSS as a tool to secure the presence of the individual to arrest, which is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State and others v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate.1
(iv) In the charge sheet filed against the Petitioner, it is mentioned that the Investigating Officer has examined the Administrative Officer and Junior Assistant of TUDA, who gave inconsistent statements regarding the log book. It is further submitted that the investigation in this case is biased and causes prejudice to the rights of the Accused. Learned Senior Counsel would further 1 (2004) 5 SCC 729 5 submit that the subject vehicle is with TUDA. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 409 IPC and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') do not attract to the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the allegation levelled against the Petitioner is that he has facilitated his father i.e., Accused No.38 to distribute money, but no cases are pending against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Even if any such case is there, it comes under the purview of Sections 171-A to 171-I of IPC.
(v) According to the statement of the Gunman of Accused No.38, he used to receive cardboard boxes. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.8,36,00,000/- was caught by the Police at Garikapadu Check Post. It is alleged against the Petitioner that he has provided the vehicle for transporting money in a secured way. In this regard, Eesha Infra Housing Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, filed W.P.No.12190 of 2024 before this Court and obtained a direction to the Police not to insist upon them to make some disclosure statements in connection with Crime No.171 of 2024 of Chillakallu Police Station, NTR District. In the said petition, it was claimed that the amount seized in the present crime belongs to them and the same was being transported to make several small payments to the farmers around the State and the Police had not permitted them to account for the said money. It is argued that absolutely there is no material to show that the vehicle, which was seized, belongs to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not violated the interim protection granted to him. Learned Senior Counsel finally prays for grant of anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 6 Arguments advanced on behalf of Respondent - State:
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel representing the State would submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the Petitioner has suppressed the pendency of the criminal cases against him before the Election Commission. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Investigating Officer, during the investigation, had collected the incriminating material, which shows prima facie case against the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, in spite of issuance of notices under Section 179 of BNSS dated 21.06.2025 and 27.06.2025, the Petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Agency and that Police custody of the Petitioner is required.
(ii) To buttress his contentions on anticipatory bail in case of serious economic offences, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda2, Directorate of Enforcement v. M.Gopal Reddy3, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement4, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)5.
(iii) On the point of bar of grant of anticipatory bail, when prima facie case is made out, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K6 and this Court in V. Dharaneesh Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh7. 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1862 4 (2019) 9 SCC 24 5 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 (2022) 17 SCC 391 7 2024 SCC OnLine AP 784 7
(iv) On the aspect of requirement of custodial interrogation to ascertain the trail of money, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra8, State of A.P v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another9, State v. Anil Sharma10.
(v) With regard to grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances in serious offences, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikanth Upadhyay v. State of Bihar11, Jaiprakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another12, Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab13.
(vi) Regarding the relevancy of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, in considering the prima facie case against the Accused, in case of a grave offence, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indresh Kumar v. The State of A.P.,14. In support of his contention that criminal antecedents of the Accused have to be disclosed in an application filed seeking bail, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muneesh v. State of U.P15. Reply arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, in reply, would submit that, misuse of the government vehicle cannot be considered as an offence either under Section 409 IPC or under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Learned Senior would further submit that, non appearance of the Petitioner, despite issuance of 8 (2016) 1 SCC 146 9 (1997) 8 SCC 104 10 (1997) 7 SCC 187 11 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 12 (2012) 4 SCC 379 13 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 14 Crl.A.No.938 of 2022 dated 12.07.2022 15 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319 8 notices under Section 179 BNSS cannot be a ground to reject the anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) that, if there is non-cooperation by an Accused in the course investigation, the remedy of seeking assistance of the Court exists.
Learned Senior Counsel finally prays to allow the petition. Point for determination:
7. On hearing the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and on perusal of the record, the following question emerges;
Whether there are any tenable grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.39 in Cr.No.21/2024?
Determination by the Court
8. Petitioner is Accused No.39 in the present crime, facing allegations of financial fraud regarding liquor scam to a tune of Rs.3,200 crores. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for State that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of the Accused, is a ground for dismissal of the application seeking anticipatory bail. As relied by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muneesh (referred supra) mandated the disclosure of criminal antecedents in the Synopsis of the Special Leave Petitions that challenge declined prayers under Section 438/439 CrPC/Sections 482/483 of BNSS and had stated that incorrect disclosure of antecedents could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the said petition. In the case at hand, though the Petitioner in his petition has not mentioned about the pendency of four criminal cases against him. The same are placed on record, vide Memo dated 10.07.2025, which disclose (1) FIR No.189 of 2023 of Chandragiri Police Station, (2) FIR No.45 of 2025 of SVU Campus Police 9 Station, (3) FIR No.75 of 2025 of SVU Campus Police Station and (4) FIR No.24 of 2019 of Chittoor I Town Police Station, registered against Petitioner/Accused No.39.
9. Further, L.W.162 - Dubbaka Giribabu, who is the gunman of Accused No.38 in his statement discloses that at the instance of Accused No.38, he along with others used to transport cash from Hyderabad, Vijayawada and other places to several constituencies around Prakasam and Chittoor. The statement further discloses that, Petitioner/Accused No.39, who is the-then Chairman of TUDA, had provided a White Colour Totoya Fortuner bearing Regn.No.AP 39 BV 3259, which was allotted to him in his official position, for transportation of cash, which is alleged to have been generated from the commissions received from various distilleries and liquor suppliers. The photographs and the data obtained from Keesara and other Toll Plazas are also placed on record by the prosecution to fortify the allegation of unauthorized transportation of money and the involvement of the subject vehicle therein. In that light, prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner/Accused No.39. In addition, it is relevant to note that the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent - State stated that the investigation so far would show that, the vehicle log books submitted by the concerned drivers to TUDA office reflect that, between November, 2023 to March, 2024 the subject vehicle never travelled to Hyderabad, which is contrary to the data obtained from various toll plazas.
10. The statement of L.W.162 would further disclose that, on 09.05.2024, the subject vehicle, while carrying the cash, was caught by the Police at Garikapadu Check Post, and cash of Rs.8.36 Crores was seized by the Police 10 and FIR No.171 of 2024 was also registered by Chillakallu Police. W.P.No.12190 of 2024 came to be filed by Eesha Infra Housing Private Limited, before this Court claiming that, though the cash found in the subject vehicle belongs to them, the Police are insisting upon them to make some disclosure statements, and obtained an interim order dated 30.05.2024 with a direction to the Police to not call the Petitioner and other persons connected with FIR No.171of 2024 to make disclosure as alleged. However, this instance is not helpful to the Petitioner herein in respect of granting anticipatory bail, in view of the specific allegations levelled against him in the present crime.
11. In Chidambaram (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that the right to anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that power conferred under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly particularly in cases of economic offences. Once again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office case (referred supra) observed that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes as they constitute a class apart due to the deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds.
12. In Sumitha Pradeep (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that mere non-requirement of custodial interrogation by itself is not a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. It was further stated that it is the primary requirement for the court while hearing an anticipatory bail application to consider if any prima facie case is put up against the accused; and thereafter nature of offence and 11 severity of punishment should be looked into. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikanth Upadhyay (referred supra) categorically held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was also held that protection of the Accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice.
13. In view of the conglomeration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments on anticipatory bail and the material placed on record, considering the gravity of the offence, magnitude of the economic nature of the crime, prima facie presence of verifiable material against the Petitioner/ Accused No.39 and potential punishment in the light of the allegations leveled against him, this Court is of the considered view that, the Petitioner has not made out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this is not a fit case for exercising the discretion under Section 482 BNSS. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Point Answered.
14. In result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.10.2025 Dinesh 12 HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.6892 of 2025 Dt.07.10.2025 Dinesh