Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Dhananjaya Reddy vs Sunil Arora And on 7 May, 2025
tt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4837. 4838 and 5009 of 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4837 of 2025
Between:
K Dhananjaya Reddy, S/o.K. Reddenna, Aged about 60 years, R/o.Flat
No. 1004, C block. Fortune one Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, CID Police Station,
Mangalagiri, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Amaravathi.
...Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to direct the Respondent Investigation Agency to enlarge the
Petitioner herein on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.21 of 2024
dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in
connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police
station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Criminal
Petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4838 of 2025
Betv\reen:
P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, P. Ramasubba Reddy, aged about 66 years,
R/o. Villa no.9-A, Sunrise Valley, Upperpally, Attapur, K.V.Rangareddy
Telangana.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, CID Police Station,
Mangalagiri, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Amaravati.
...Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to direct the Respondent Investigation Agency to enlarge the
Petitioner herein on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.21 of 2024
dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to tbe petitioner in
connection with Crime. No.21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police
Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Criminal
Petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P
Shashi Vardhan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on
behalf of the Respondent.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5009 of 2025
Between:
Balaji Govindappa, S/o.PM Govindappa, Aged about 60 years, Occ:
Private Employee, R/o. Flat No. 101 Burri Residency, Mch 8-2-
624/a/b/3/1, Road No.11, City Centre, Banjara Hills, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, CID Police Station,
Mangalagiri, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Amaravathi.
...Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in
connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police
Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
r
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in
connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 of CID Police
Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms.
Tanusha Venkata Lakshmi Kurapati, Advocate for the Petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.
The Court made the following Common Order:
APHC010230002025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
^IMINAL PETITION NOs: 4837. 4838 AND 5009 OF 2n7fi
CRUVIINAL PETITION N0.4837 OF 2025:
Between:
K Dhananjaya Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO 4838 OF 2025:
Between:
P. Krishna Mohan Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.P SHASHI VARDHAN
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:
2
TMR,J
CrI.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.5009 OF 2025:
Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
Balaji Govindappa
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.TANUSHA VENKATA LAKSHMI KURAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
1. Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS'), seeking
anticipatory bail by different accused i.e., Crl.P.No.4837 of 2025 (filed by
K. Dhananjaya Reddy), CrI.P.No.4838 of 2025 (filed P. Krishna Mohan Reddy)
and Crl.P.No.5009 of 2025 (filed by Balaji Govindappa) in same crime viz..
Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, they are being taken
up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.
2. The above crime was registered for the offences punishable under
section 409, 420, 120-B r/w. Sections 34, 37 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC') and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act').
3. The prosecution's case, as outlined in the report dated 23.09.2024, is
as follows:
i. On 23.09.2024 at 22:00 hrs, a report was received from Sri Mukesh
Kumar Meena, Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
3
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
vide Memo No. Rev-01/CPE/20/2024-VIG-IV, dated 20.09.2024. The
complainant outlined concerns regarding irregularities and corruption in
Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) from
October 2019 to March 2024. The report referenced multiple
Government Memo No. Rev-
communications including the
01/P&E/Complaints/2024, dated 09.09.2024, and a letter from the MD
APSBCL (Lr.No.APSBCL/OFS/2024-25, dated 18.09.2024), along with its
enclosures.
ii. One Y. Venkateswara Rao Srinivas made a representation alleging
irregularities in the APSBCL between October 2019 and March 2024. This
was forwarded to the MD, APSBCL, for investigation, and a detailed report
was provided per the second reference,
which
iii. After reviewing the records, the Committee found the irregularities,
are as follows;
(1) Suppression of established popular brands and unfair
discrimination in the allocation of OFS (Order for Supply) over a
of some
period of time led to the almost complete disappearance
brands from the market.
to certain new
(2) Favourable and preferential allocation of orders
brands in violation of the existing norms, giving them undue
market share and competitive advantage.
(3) The procurement system was shifted to a manual process, giving
automated
scope for manipulation in OFS against the previous
OFS system, compromising the process's integrity.
iv. The MD, APSBCL, reported that the Committee examined the OFS (Order
for Supply) data from 2018 onwards, as detailed in the annexures.
However, they could not determine the motive behind the discrimination
and manipulations observed in the records and data related to the
procurement process and other issues raised in the petition. The
investigation
Committee recommended that an external specialized
the Committee's
agency be appointed to take further action; based on
TMR.
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
report, the MD, APSBCL, suggested that the matter be referred to a
specialized agency for further investigation.
V. The report has been examined, and considering the seriousness of the
matter, as outlined in the Internal Committee's enquiry report, which
mentions suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential
aHocation, and other violations, further action is deemed necessary.
4.
The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4837 of 2025, in brief, is that;
(a) The petitioner was one of the Secretaries to the then Chief Minister and
had earlier served in the then Chief Minister's Office (CMO). The nature
of his duties does not include policy making or policy implementation
and the petitioner was dealing with finance, irrigation, municipal
administration, agriculture, energy, tourism subjects and he never dealt
with the excise department.
(b)At the outset, it is submitted that the petitioner's name in the remand
reports appears to be a deliberate attempt to malign him, despite no
nexus to the excise policy, given his limited role as Secretary to the then
Chief Minister. The CMO had no oversight over excise matters, and the
petitioner's duties did not extend to policy formulation or execution,
(c) The allegations, based on conjecture and contrary to public records are
politically motivated. No new distillery licences were issued between
2019-2024, and existing policies and rates from the prior regime
remained unchanged, resulting in increased state revenue, rendering
claims of a syndicate illogical.
(d)The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in Case No. 45 of 2021,
ruled there was no arbitrariness by APSBCL or the Excise Department,
conclusively closing the issue of 'brand killing.' Despite this, the
complaint continues to rely on discredited claims to harass the petitioner.
None of the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 409
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
420, or 120B IPC are made out. The petitioner neither had entrustment
of property nor acted with inducement, deception, or common intention.
He had no involvement with APSBCL or excise operations.
(e)The invocation of Sections 34 and 37 IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8,
13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the PC Act is baseless. No undue advantage was
received or offered, nor was there any misuse of public office. The
petitioner's role was purely administrative, without proximity to excise
decisions. The investigation appears biased, driven by extraneous
influence, and involves coercive tactics against unrelated individuals, as
noted by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 10339 of 2025.
(f) Section 482 BNSS enhances judicial discretion in granting anticipatory
bail, recognizing misuse of process in politically motivated cases. The
petitioner, a respected IAS officer with an unblemished record, seeks
protection from a false and fabricated prosecution initiated with malice
and devoid of evidence.
5. The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4838 of 2025, in brief, is that
(a) The Petitioner, a retired Special Grade Deputy Collector and former
Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Chief Minister, retired voluntarily
in 2013 with an unblemished record. His role was limited to
coordinating appointments and public representations, without any
involvement in policy formulation or implementation.
(b)An FIR (Crime No.21/2024) was registered by CID, Mangalagiri,
based on a complaint alleging irregularities in the previous excise
policy. Despite having no connection to the policy or the alleged
irregularities, the Petitioner's name appeared in remand reports,
indicating a malafide attempt to falsely implicate him.
(c)The investigation agency allegedly coerced the family of Accused
No.1, prompting intervention by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.
6
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
No. 10339/2025, directing no coercive steps. Notably similar
allegations were dismissed by the CCI in Case No.45/2021.
(d)The Petitioner, a senior citizen with no criminal antecedents, is not
involved in the liquor business or any related transactions. Charges
under PC Act and IPC are inapplicable to him, as there was no
entrustment of property or misuse of official position.
6. The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5009 of 2025, in brief, is that
(a) The Petitioner, a Fellow Chartered Accountant and Cost &
Management Accountant with over 35 years of experience across
sectors, currently serves as Director and Chief Compliance Officer at
Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd., part of the Vicat Group. His
role is purely private and unrelated to any governmental function.
Though family members of the former Chief Minister have interests
in the company, the Petitioner has no association with the previous
government, its policies, or their implementation. His implication in
the case is solely based on his employment, which is arbitrary and
unfounded.
(b)The Petitioner has no knowledge of or involvement in the excise
policy of 2019-2024. His prosecution constitutes an abuse of legal
process and misuse of investigative powers. None of the invoked
provisions, i.e. Sections 420, 409 read with 120B, 34, 37 IPC, and
Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1 )(b), 13(2) of the PC Act, apply to the
Petitioner. He neither held a public office nor had any role in the
formulation or execution of excise-related matters.
(c)The allegations are inherently improbable and unsupported by
evidence. Although not yet named as an accused, the investigative
pattern suggests indiscriminate arraignment of individuals solely
based on Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., statements, reflecting a premeditated
and unjust approach.
7
TMR,J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
I have heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4837
representing Sri P,
of 2025 and Sri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel
Shashi Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4838 of 2025
Sri Tanusha
and Sri Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel representing
in Crl.P.No.5009
Venkata Lakshmi Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioner
of 2025 and Sri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel representing on
behalf of Respondent/State. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their
submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the
report.
8. The parameters for granting anticipatory bail have been succinctly laid
down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra^ wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows;
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration
while dealing with anticipatory bail:
the accused
"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of
must be properly comprehended before arrest is made,
fact as to whether the
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant, including the
accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence,
(Hi) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other
offences;
injuring or
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her,
cases of large
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly
in
magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
material against the
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available
alsed very carefully. The Court mus, also *ady ccrnprehend me ^
rote of the accused In the case. The cases in which 7hTcor^t
with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860, the Court
and caution because over-
should consider with even more excellent care and concern,
implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge
(viii) While censoring the prayer for the grant of dnticipam barf bea ha/a^e
should caused
has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice
' (2011) 1 see 694
8
TMR,J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The Court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(X) Frivolity in Prosecution should always be considered; it is only the element
o genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail
and m the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
Prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an
order of bail."
9. The case of the prosecution is that following the 2019 elections, the
government introduced a liquor policy vide G.O.Ms.No.357 (16.08.2019),
establishing 3,500 Government Retail Outlets (GROs) under APSBCL. The
policy, purportedly towards prohibition, however, the prosecution contends
that instead it facilitated State control over the liquor trade. The material
placed indicates that during the investigation, Sri T. Daiva Prasad, then DSP,
CID RO, Kurnool, examined witnesses LW-1 to 7 recorded statements, and
conducted searches at APSBCL and distilleries with mediators, local police.
and APFSL staff. Notices
were served to officials, including the Tahsildar,
APFSL Asst. Director Sri Swamy and SFIO Patamata PS. Seized items--74
hard disks, one laptop, and 1,016 documents- ■were sent to FSL, Mangalagiri.
The case was transferred to Sri R. Sri Hari Babu, Addl. SP, CID (EOW) on
12.11.2024 for further investigation. So far 128 witnesses have been
examined.
10.
According to the case of prosecution, L.W. 69, Sri D. Satya Prasad,
Assistant Commissioner, revealed that he was invited by Member of
Parliament, P. Mithun Reddy, to join a syndicate exploiting the iiquor
procurement system for kickbacks. He met with key persons, including Mr. V.
Vijaya Sai Reddy and Mr. Vasudeva Reddy, and they devised a scheme to
earn f50-60 crore monthly through commissions. Mr. Vasudeva Reddy
managed APSBCL operations, while Satya Prasad handled sales and
marketing. In November 2019, Satya Prasad was appointed Special Officer
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
furthsr consolidating control, and met with Rajasekhar Reddy to advance the
conspiracy.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that in October 2019, Satya Prasad met
Member of Parliament (MP) Mr. Mithun Reddy, who proposed using the OPS
(Online File System) for a kickback scheme, promising Prasad an IAS
promotion as an incentive. Days later, a meeting at V. Vijaya Sai Reddy s
residence involving key political figures mapped out a plan to exploit liquor
sales via OFS, targeting f50-60 crore monthly. By early 2020, control over
OFS was handed to Satya Prasad, following dissatisfaction with liquor brands.
APSBCL used C-Tel Software for OFS generation and minimized human
interference. On 15.10.2019, the automated OFS system was disabled on
Vasudeva Reddy's instructions, despite objections from the C-Tel Project
Manager, a private e-mail was used to receive manual OFS requests,
bypassing the automated system and allowing discretionary control. According
to the prosecution, Satya Prasad coordinated these illicit activities daily,
directing depot managers based on kickback arrangements, using specific
digital devices for operations. Kickbacks ranged from ?150 to ?600 per case,
depending on brand category, and the lack of formal delegation allowed the
exclusion of non-compliant suppliers. Monthly sales spanned 27--30 lakh IML
cases and 7-10 lakh beer cases. Raw material procurement was manipulated
through inflated pricing, with excess funds siphoned back to the syndicate,
completing a systematic corruption loop.
12. The investigation discloses that to ensure kickbacks were properly
collected, a real-time communication system was set up between APSBCL
and the Raj team. A. Anusha, appointed by Rajat Bhargav, collected daily
sales data and sent it to Saif, who created kickback tables. These tables were
sent to Raj, Sumith, and Chanakya/Prakash, who then coordinated with
distilleries every 5 days to collect kickbacks. Payments were collected and
handed to Raj Kessireddy.
10
13. D ^ Of 2025 & Batch
-n - indent plan and
-*.-.vaLr:~^ Reddy, Kessireddy
Rajasekhar Reddy,
ensure the plan's
and Sajjala Sreedhar Reddy . held regular meetings to
success. Initially, Sumith
monitored kickbacks but was
replaced by Chanakya (Prakash) . who used VPNs virtual numbers
Signal to and
communicate with distilleries
payments were released avoiding traceability. After APSBCL
Prakash demanded kickbacks within two days
before further orders were placed.
14. It is the
case of the prosecution that wi
2019, distillery owners were coerced into witnesses revealed that in late
a meeting at Hotel Taj Krishna,
Hyderabad, led by Sajjala Sreedhar Reddy. They were forced to cooperate by
raising pianned indents and issuing manual OFSs, with kickbacks starting at
12 later rising to 20%. 0- Approximately ?50 - 60 crores
monthly. was collected
15. It is the case of the
followed
prosecution that APSBCL s payment procedure
a discount policy for timely supplier payments, but MD
Reddy continued Vasudeva
applying an outdated
policy after the 2021 revised
i GO,
causing a financial loss to the
2024, ?200 government. Between June 2022 and March
crore was overpaid to
suppliers, benefiting distilleries
Agro Industries and Leela Distiileries as part of the ongoing kickback like Spy
scheme.
16.
It is the case of the
APSBCL (LW-93) revaairZ?; of
losses in
Pvt. Ltd., i
government revenue. Investigations reveaied that Adan Distiiieries
incorporated in 2020, had key connections with the syndicate. The
company was created with ?60
Crore capitai, transferred by individuais linked
to the politicai network. These transactions rai
dealings that require further raise concerns about illicit financial
scrutiny.
11
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
17. It is the case of the prosecution that the involvement of key persons like
Mr. Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy and Mr. Vijaya Sai Reddy suggests a larger
conspiracy requiring deeper investigation. Adan Distilleries and Leela
Distilleries achieved massive turnovers through sub-lease agreements with
established distilleries. Suspicious transactions between these companies
point to potential illicit payments and quid pro quo arrangements. The
syndicate leveraged its political influence to monopolise the liquor market,
manipulating APSBCL's processes and securing illegal gains by:
1. Changing the OFS process from automated to manual,
2. Overriding new brand allocation procedures,
3. Modifying the indent plan procedure,
4. Controlling the GRO logins.
18. It is further alleges that from 2019 to 2024, the syndicate illicitly
amassed approximately f3,200 crore through manipulation of the liquor
distribution market in Andhra Pradesh. They withheld orders for popular
brands, applied improper payment discounts, and circumvented new brand
allocation procedures, causing significant financial loss to both the
government and well-known liquor brands.
19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent/State submits that the petitioners have been named as accused
in the present case. To establish the petitioners'involvement, the prosecution
relied upon the statements of L.W.26 - Nunna Sharan, L.W.104 - Ammireddi
Jayapal Reddy, L.W.105 - Sunkara Ayyappa, and L.W.108 - Veera Durga
Malleswara Rao, which prima facie indicate the role played by the petitioners
in the commission of the alleged offence.
20. The prosecution has also relied upon the confessional statements of co
accused persons to establish the petitioners' involvement in the commission of
the offence. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners have strongly opposed the reliance on such confessional
12
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
statements, contending that they are inadmissible in evidence. In contrast, the I
learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/State submits that the statements
1
made by co-accused persons are subject to evaluation during trial, and it
would be incorrect to contend that confessional statements made by an
accused during interrogation cannot be considered for the purpose of
connecting other accused persons. This Court is of the view that such
disclosure statements made by co-accused can indeed be taken into
consideration as investigative leads and, further, may be admissible during
trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. It is erroneous to say that confessional statement made by the accused
during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other
co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken
into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is
admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. According to the prosecution, the scheme in question favoured select
liquor brands such as Adan and Leela, while sidelining well-established
brands like Pernod Ricard and McDowell. As a result, several distilleries either
shut down operations or diverted their products to other states. Despite
receiving consumer complaints regarding the quality of alcohol, no remedial
measures were undertaken. The distilleries allegedly employed methods such
as transferring funds to gold traders, procuring GST invoices, and remitting
cash to the accused after deducting commissions. The investigation has
revealed suspicious transactions amounting to approximately ?300-400
crores. In support of these allegations, the prosecution has produced records
of suspicious transactions involving Leela Agro and S.P.Y. Agro; bullion
transactions entered into by Tilak Nagar Industries Limited; bullion invoices
and ledger entries of Arham Bullion and Tilak Nagar Industries Limited; and
details of entities that were found to be non-existent.
13
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
r-
23. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4837 of 2025 asserts that his duties did not
encompass policy-making or policy implementation. He was primarily engaged
with matters related to finance, irrigation, municipal administration, agriculture,
energy and tourism, and had no involvement with the excise department.
Similarly, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4838 of 2025 maintains that his role was
confined to coordinating appointments and addressing public representations.
with no participation in policy formulation or execution. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner argues that, even assuming the petitioner attended
the relevant meeting it cannot be concluded that he played any role in the
formulation or execution of the Excise Policy. In support of his contention, he
vs. Sunil Arora and
placed reliance on a decision reported in Manju Surana
others^, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that.
" 44, XXX There was no allegation in respect of any role played by the
Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. It cannot be said to be a
cannot be the stand
mere mis-description of name, which can be corrected. It
of the appellant that willy-nilly somehow, Respondent 1 must remain before
arrayed as
the
an accused in those proceedings, even though the proceedings
Magistrate are at the stage of only whether there should be a direction for
investigation or not. It is not that every officer in the Government has to be
arrayed in respect of any role performed or not. The mere presence in one
meeting of Respondent 1 and that too when he was not a signatory and really
had no role to play in that capacity, as apparent from the minutes, cannot be
now used to justify his name being included as an accused. This is clearly an
afterthought. It is not for the appellant to question as to which officer should or
should not be present."
24. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.No.5009 of 2025
The
contends that the petitioner's role is entirely private and unrelated to any
governmental functions. While family members of the former Chief Minister
may have interests in the company the petitioner has no affiliation with the
previous government, its policies, or their implementation. However, the
Respondent-State has presented material indicating that the petitioners
participated in meetings related to the Excise Policy and were involved in
(2018) 5 see 557
14
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
overseeing the liquor business on behalf of the government, including issuing
orders and facilitating the production of liquor. In this regard, the prosecution
has specifically relied on the statement of L.W. 26, which was recorded on
11.12.2024, well before the filing of the petitioners' anticipatory bail
applications. Consequently, it is difficult to accept the argument that these
statements were recorded solely to implicate the petitioners in this case after
the filing of the anticipatory bail petitions.
25.
The allegations against the petitioners are that they were responsible
for the discontinuation of popular liquor brands and the promotion of favoured
brands, collecting approximately Rs.3200 Crores in kickbacks for the liquor
syndicate. The prosecution further claims that, on average, the accused
received Rs.50-60 crores per month in kickbacks, with A.1 allegedly handing
over these amounts to the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5009 of 2025 and
Crl.P.No.4838 of 2025.
26.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the
aggrieved parties had previously raised the same allegations, which formed
the basis for the lodging of the F.I.R., before the Competition Commission of
India in Case No. 45 of 2021. However, the Hon'ble Competition Commission
of India concluded that neither the Prohibition and Excise Department nor
APSBCL had engaged in any arbitrary or discriminatory actions. In its ruling,
the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in Case No. 45 of 2021 found no
evidence of arbitrariness on the part of APSBCL or the Excise Department
thereby conclusively closing the issue of 'brand killing.
27.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4837 of 2025
placed reliance on P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar^, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that:
"23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance
Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the
^ (1996) 9 see 1
15
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
Hiah Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gorte into in the finai
do not agree with the view 1996 for allowing the appeal and
behalf of the
28. On the other harrd, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
decision reported in State (NCT of
Respondent-State, piaces reliance on the Court heid that.
Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagt wherein the Hon'bie Apex
identical charge or the evidence has to be quashed.
20 it is well settled that the decision is an ^
~£SS=si=
quashed on that ground. This would be
which reads as follows: (SCC p. 9)
"23. Even though all these facts including the report of the Central Vigilance
Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the
Into in the final
Hiah Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone ion, exonerating
nZeZgs and the report of the Central Vigilance Commisskrn would not
the appellant of the
" i'-e
the reasons given, on \Z;Ztro^f this case,Therefore,
. the -Vninai proceeds
we do not agree
initiated against the appellant cannot e reasons
With the "a 7 « TS:^h::Cnn.inai Appeal No.
the impugned criminal proceedings
(emphasis supplied)
(2012) 9 SCC 685
16
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
From the reading of the aforesaid passage of the judgment it is evident that
the prosecution was not terminated on the ground of exoneration in the
departmental proceeding but, on its peculiar facts.
29. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State
argues that the proceedings before the Competition Commission of India
(CCI) pertain to the period from 2019 to 2021, whereas the allegations against
the accused persons cover the period from 2019 to 2024. Therefore, the
findings recorded by the CCI cannot be afforded significant weight in this
context. The prosecution has relied upon sale transactions presented in a
tabular form, and the details contained therein, prima facie, support the
prosecution's case.
Brand Quantity in 2018-19 Quantity in 2023-24
McDowell's Brandy 22,73,086 5
Imperial Blue Whisky 20,21,955 7
Kingfisher Beer 1,02,47,566 11,82,388
Budweiser Beer 22,52,195 0
Brand Market share 2018-19 Market share 2023-24
McDowell's Brandy 23.41% 2.15%
Kingfisher Beer 29.5% 3.21%
Budweiser Beer 11.43% 1.25%
S.No. Name of the Brand Quantity Intended
1. Ocean Blue Whiskey 2,76,706
2. Daru House Whiskey 68,83,420
3. Supreme Blend Whiskey 77,35,400
4. Brilliant Blend Whiskey 37,30,800
5. 9 Sea Horse Whiskey 46,07,733
6. Andhra Gold Whiskey 20,61,711
7. Good Friend Whiskey 27,72,050
8. HD Whiskey 22,02,555
30. The prosecution contends that an analysis of the financial accounts of
various distilleries and suppliers involved in the liquor business reveals that
these entities agreed to pay kickbacks at prescribed rates, based on the
category of liquor. Additionally, they were compelled to arrange regular cash
payments, which were channelled through the accounts of real estate
companies, shell companies, and other entities. A portion of the funds was
17
TMR, J
CrI.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
subsequently transferred to various accounts. The prosecution further states
that the investigation is still in its early stages and requires a thorough
examination of these transactions.
31. In Ashok Kumar V. State of Union Territory Chandigarh^, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the effective
modes of investigating the alleged crime. It is equaliy true that just because
custodial interrogation is not required that by itself may also not be a ground to
release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a severe nature.
However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for
anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient.
The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the
custodial Interrogation of the accused is required for investigation.
32. This Court views that the investigating officer deserves a free hand to
take the investigation to its logical conclusion in a case containing severe
allegations. With regard to the Prosecution's case, the investigation remains
incomplete. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners could potentially
hinder the ongoing investigation. The allegations are severe, and the
the
investigating agency has not yet been able to interrogate
Accused/Petitioners, The established legal principle is that anticipatory
bail is not granted as a matter of routine; it should only be provided when the
such an
Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant
extraordinary remedy.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to "Satlingappa Mhetre's
case and other judgments, observing that anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances, in Jail Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar
and Another^, held as under;-
19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required
to be satisfied and further while granting such relief the court must record the
reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
® 2024 S.C.C. Online SC 274
^(2012) 4 see 379
18
TMR,J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
circumstances where the court is prime facie of the view that the applicant has
falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K.
Ganesh Babu v. P. T. Manokaran [(2007) 4 SCO 434 ; (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345]
, State of Maharashtra \/. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [(2008) 1 SCC
213 . (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal
[(2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].)
34.
The investigation is at the initial stage, as it is a case containing serious
allegations, this Court views that anticipatory bail is not to be granted, as the
Investigation Officer deserves free hand to take the investigation to its logical
conclusion. The petitioner has to be interrogated in custody. The release of
the petitioners may adversely affect the investigation process.
35.
The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only
in exceptional circumstances, where the court is prima facie convinced that
the petitioners are enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty
granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners is
paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the
accusations. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant
loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its
integrity. To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the
petitioners must undergo custodial interrogation.
36.
The statements provided by several witnesses have underscored the
petitioners' prima facie involvement in the criminal conspiracy associated with
the Excise Policy. It cannot lose sight of serious allegations leveled by the
prosecution and the evidences collected during the course of investigation and
presented before this Court, which prima facie reveal the petitioners'role in the
offence in question. The material placed on record, its face, suggests the
petitioners' involvement in the offence in question. Given these circumstances,
custodial interrogation is deemed essential to confront the petitioners with the
gathered evidence and to unravel a broader conspiracy implicating the
accused in the implementation of the Excise Policy.
19
TMR, J
Crl.P.Nos.4837 of 2025 & Batch
37. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and
after considering the gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case,
particularly taking note of the accusation that Rs.3200 crores were said to be
collected towards kickbacks for the liquor syndicate and also considering the
settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is
to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances and thus, no such
circumstances being having been made out in this case, this court does not
find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.
38. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, this court
concludes that the petitioners are not entitled to leniency in the grant of
anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitions, lacking merit, are dismissed.
39. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion
on the merits of the case, and the observations made in the present cases are
only for adjudicating the present bail applications.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in these Criminal Petitions,
shall stand closed.
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To Additional
1. The Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases-cum-lll
District and SessionsOfficer,
Judge,CID
Vijayawada, Kdshna ,
Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur
2. The Station House
District.
3. TwoCCstothe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravathi[OUT] . x rrrDi in
4 One CC to Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate [OPUuj
s'. One CC to Sri P Shashi Vardhan. Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Ms. Tanusha Venkata Lakshmi Kurapah, Advocate [OPUC]
7. Three CD Copies
TK
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/05/2025
COMMON ORDER
CRLP.Nos.4837, 4838 & 5009 of 2025 dismissing THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS'