APHC010713262025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 13503 & 13504/2025 and 27 /2026

Criminal Petition No:13503 of 2025:

Between:

EDDALA NAVEEN KRISHNA, S/O.RADHA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 31

YEARS, R/O.D.NO.5-29, AMNDATHIPURAM, PUDIPATLA VILLAGE,

TIMPATHI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.36

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. P NAGENDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

Criminal Petition No.13504 of 2025:

Between:

M. BALAJI KUMAR YADAV, S/o .KULLAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38

YEARS, R/O.D.No.3-118, M.R.PALLY, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.35

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

2

OF POLICE VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR KRISHNA

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

Criminal Petition No.27 of 2026:

Between:

BOONETI CHANAKYA, S/O.LACHAPPA SAILU, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1 -7-511/4, HARI NAGARJAMISTHANPUR,

MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.8

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

TEAM, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. G L NAGESWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

1

have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused

Nos.8, 35 and 36, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.21 of

2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the offences 409, 420,

and 120-B read with Sections 34, 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2

and

1

For short ‘BNSS’

2

For short ‘IPC’

3

Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1)(b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988

3

.

2. As the different Accused in these Petitions relate to the same crime,

for ease of understanding, they are disposed of by this common order.

However, each individual petition is determined with reference to the

respective Petitioner.

Case of the Prosecution, in concise, is as follows:

3. The present crime arises out of allegations concerning large-scale

irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy and functioning of the

Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) during

2019 to 2024. The matter came to light upon a representation made to the

Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 26.08.2024 by

one Venkateswara Rao Srinivas, alleging irregularities in the excise policy

from 2019 to 2024. The report high lighted issues such as unfair

discrimination in the allocation of Orders for Supply (OFS) of liquor, leading

to the suppression of established brands and preferential treatment for new

brands, in violation of existing norms. It also raised concerns about the shift

from an automated to a manual OFS system, which could allow for

manipulations. After an enquiry, Principal Secretary referred the complaint to

CID Police, Mangalagiri, which registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2024

against unknown persons on 23.09.2024, alleging offences under Sections

409, 420, and 120-B of IPC. On 05.02.2025, the Government constituted a

3

For short ‘PC Act’

4

Special Investigation Team (SIT), vide G.O.Rt.No.262 to investigate the

alleged irregularities in the excise policy and related crimes.

4. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 in the above crime.

The allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 are that, he acted as an

Operations Commander in the alleged ₹3,500 crore Andhra Pradesh Liquor

Scam, managing kickback collections, using aliases to conceal his identity,

arranging SIM cards through fraudulent KYC documents, organizing cash

collection and distribution networks, coercing distilleries, facilitating

laundering of funds abroad, and coordinating movement of illicit money with

the co-accused. It is further alleged that he played a key role in transporting

cash to intended beneficiaries.

5. It is alleged against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.35 and 36 that, they

being the Personal Assistants to the former MLA of Chandragiri Assembly

Constituency (Accused No.38), organised the movement and logistics of

cash allegedly generated through kickbacks for the purpose of buying votes

in the A.P.General Elections, 2024.

Arguments advanced at the Bar:

6. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri

G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.8,

Ms.Liz Mathew, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Veladi Sai Sri

Harsha, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.35 and Sri

K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.Nagendra Reddy,

learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.36 and Sri Posani

5

Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi

Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor for State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.8:

7. Sri N.Ashwani Singh, learned counsel assisted by Sri G.L.Nageswara

Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.8 would submit that the

prosecution case is based on general and cyclostyled statements of

witnesses, many of whom are alleged co-conspirators, and no specific overt

act is attributed to the Petitioner. Even as per the prosecution, the alleged

conspiracy meetings were conducted by Accused Nos.1 to 5 and there is no

allegation of the Petitioner’s participation therein.

It is contended that the alleged offences are not attracted against him;

except Section 409 IPC, all other offences are punishable with imprisonment

of below seven years. Learned counsel would submit that the Police custody

of the Petitioner is over, entire investigation with regard to the Petitioner /

Accused No.8 has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed on

19.07.2025. It is submitted that no incriminating material, property, or

proceeds of crime have been seized from him.

Learned counsel would argue that the Petitioner was arrayed as an

accused nearly one year after registration of the crime, he has cooperated

with the investigation, and is not a flight risk. After dismissal of his earlier bail

application, he has undergone prolonged custody, constituting a change in

circumstances. Parity is also claimed, as a co-accused projected as the

kingpin has been granted bail. Hence, continued detention is stated to be

6

unjustified and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence,

prayed to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.8 on bail.

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.35:

8. Ms.Liz Mathew, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Veladi Sai Sri

Harsha, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.35 would submit that

the Petitioner / Accused No.35 has been falsely implicated in the present

crime. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is

neither the Personal Assistant of Accused No.38 nor closely associated with

him and is merely an outsourcing employee working in APCPDCL. Except a

vague allegation that the Petitioner allegedly transported cash at the instance

of Accused No.38, no specific overt act is attributed to him.

Learned Senior Counsel argues that the Petitioner is implicated based

on the statement of LW-162, which is wholly unreliable. LW-162 is a

Government employee examined by superior officers, giving rise to a

reasonable apprehension of inducement, coercion or political influence.

Significantly, immediately after making the alleged confession, LW-162 was

promoted to the Octopus team with a substantial salary hike. LW-162 was

himself shown as Accused No.7 in Crime No.171/2024 arising out of the very

same seizure of ₹8.37 crores, rendering his statement self-serving and

intended to redirect the culpability.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that no offence under Section

409 IPC is made out against the Petitioner, as he is not a public servant, no

entrustment is alleged and no victim of misappropriation has been identified.

7

The remand report does not disclose any dishonest intention, inducement,

deception, conspiracy or common intention attributable to the Petitioner and,

therefore, Sections 420 and 120-B read with Sections 34 and 37 IPC are not

attracted. The provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are wholly

inapplicable, as the Petitioner is not a public servant and there is no

allegation of bribery, gratification or illegal enrichment.

It is further submitted that even as per the charge sheet, the only

allegation against the Petitioner is that he allegedly transported cash much

prior to the General Elections, without any material to show participation in

planning, conspiracy or distribution, or derivation of any benefit. The

statements of prosecution witnesses relied upon do not disclose any

incriminating material against the Petitioner and are largely irrelevant. The

charge sheet was filed on 15-09-2025 and no further investigation has been

sought against the Petitioner, demonstrating that the investigation as against

him stands concluded. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since

30.06.2025.

Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that several co-accused,

including Accused Nos.4, 30, 31, 32 and 33, who stand on the footing, have

already been granted bail. The case against the Petitioner is largely based

on CDR and co-location data, which has been held to be weak and non-

conclusive. It is submitted that the investigation with regard to the Petitioner

has been completed. The Petitioner is a permanent resident with a fixed

abode, is not a beneficiary of the alleged offence, cannot influence witnesses

8

or tamper with evidence, and continued detention violates his fundamental

rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner undertakes

to cooperate with the trial and abide by any conditions imposed and prays to

be enlarged on bail. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel

has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

P.Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P

4

and Chevireddy Mohith Reddy

vs. The State of A.P and another

5

.

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.36:

9. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.Nagendra

Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.36 would submit that

the entire prosecution case is false and that, except a vague allegation of

transporting cash, no specific overt act is attributed to the Petitioner /

Accused No.36. The Petitioner is neither a public servant nor entrusted with

any amount.

Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the charge sheet

has been filed solely on the basis of statements of LW-162 and LW-167. The

investigation, as against the Petitioner, is complete and no further

investigation is pending. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been in

judicial remand since 30-06-2025, is not a beneficiary of the alleged

kickback, and there is no possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering

with evidence. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial and

abide by any conditions imposed and prays to be enlarged on bail.

4

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157

5

SLP (Crl.) No.15994 of 2025, dated 10.10.2025

9

Arguments on behalf of Respondent/ State:

In relation to Accused No.8

10. Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

Prosecution would submit that the Petitioner / Accused No.8 played a crucial

role in establishing UV Distilleries for receiving wrongful gains and

coordinated the fleeing of co-accused and investment of kickbacks obtained

through the liquor trade in African countries through Accused Nos.9, 34 and

38. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein also coerced the

distilleries and liquor companies into paying kickbacks.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Petitioner was

controlling day-to-day operations and was acting as syndicate’s embedded

proxy. Petitioner acted as a close associate to Accused No.1 for investing

and diverting the funds received through kickbacks from the liquor trade. It is

submitted that the CDRs and the material gathered during investigation

prima facie reveals the involvement of the Petitioner / Accused No.8 in the

alleged crime. There is no change of circumstances from the date of

dismissal of the bail applications by the learned trial Judge.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Petitioner intentionally

had avoided participating in the investigation and some Co-accused are still

absconding and are yet to be arrested. The benefit of principle of parity

cannot be given to the Petitioner merely because of some of the co-accused

were granted bail. Since the Petitioner had already evaded participating in

the investigation, there is every likelihood of abscondence of the Petitioner if

10

he is released on bail and may threaten the witnesses and tamper with the

evidence. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, mere filing of charge

sheet against the Petitioner, is not a ground to grant bail to the Petitioner,

since the further investigation in the present crime is pending. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the petition concerning Accused No.8.

In relation to Accused No.35

11. Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

Prosecution would submit that the Petitioner herein is an associate of

Accused No.38 and was entrusted with the task of collecting and transporting

large sums of cash from different locations, which was thereafter kept as per

the instructions of Accused No.38. The role attributed to the Petitioner forms

part of a larger conspiracy involving the movement of illicit funds.

It is submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner after the incident

clearly points to his culpability. The Petitioner deliberately absconded,

switched off his mobile phone and evaded the investigating agency, thereby

obstructing the investigation. Such conduct disentitles him from the

discretionary relief of bail, as it demonstrates a real likelihood of the

Petitioner fleeing from justice, if enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the charge sheet

has already been filed on 15.09.2025 after a detailed and thorough

investigation and the material collected prima facie establishes the

involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the offences. The filing of

the charge sheet does not dilute the seriousness of the offences, nor does it

11

automatically entitle the Petitioner to bail, particularly in cases involving

organised and grave economic offences.

It is further submitted that the bail applications filed by the Petitioner

were earlier dismissed by the learned Special Judge after considering the

entire material on record. There is no change in circumstances since the

rejection of the earlier bail applications warranting reconsideration by this

Hon’ble Court. The grounds now urged are a mere repetition of the

contentions already considered and rejected.

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the offences alleged are

serious in nature, involving large-scale movement of unaccounted cash. If

the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of influencing

witnesses or hampering the trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In relation to Accused No.36

12. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri

M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

Petitioner played an active role in the organized movement of illicit funds

generated through kickbacks. It is further submitted that the Petitioner

directly supervised and arranged the logistics of transporting huge cash

consignments, coordinating closely with Accused Nos.35 and 37. On each

occasion, amounts of ₹8–9 crores were transported from Hyderabad to

Tirupati under his supervision. By virtue of his close association with

Accused No.38, the Petitioner / Accused No.36 handled illegal financial

operations. Witness statements categorically state that the Petitioner

12

managed these consignments for the specific purpose of influencing voters

in the 2024 elections, ensuring secrecy and safe handling of the funds. His

repeated involvement clearly establishes his knowing participation in the

larger criminal conspiracy and his role as an executor of the plan to convert

illicit syndicate funds into political bribes.

Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the statements of

several listed witnesses and the material collected in the charge sheet

specifically name the Petitioner and demonstrate his active role in the

conspiracy. The Call Detail Records and FSL reports further establish a clear

nexus between the Petitioner and the other co-accused. It is submitted that

the Petitioner attempted to evade investigation; a Look Out Circular was

issued against him on 31.05.2025 and he was apprehended on 30.06.2025

at Madhya Pradesh, which clearly shows his deliberate attempt to abscond

and avoid cooperation with the investigation.

Learned Senior Counsel would argue that in view of the material

collected during investigation, a strong prima facie case is made out against

the Petitioner. Considering the gravity and magnitude of the economic

offence, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the Petitioner

is not entitled to bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

13. Having heard the arguments on both the sides, this Court has perused

the material available on record in these Petitions. The following point arises

for determination:

13

Whether the respective Petitioners are entitled for the grant of regular

bail?

Determination by the Court

14. Before delving into the question of grant of bail in each of the Petition,

it is beneficial to state the settled principles of law governing bail

jurisprudence.

15. Consideration for grant of bail is not in a strait jacket formula and it will

have to be determined on case-to-case basis on the facts involved. A three-

Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v.

Directorate of Enforcement

6

, discussed the factors to be considered in

dealing with a bail application as follows;

“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the

well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each

case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while

considering an application for bail:

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment

in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied

upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses

or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the

accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other

considerations.

[Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad

Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001

SCC (Cri) 674] .]

***

23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] , it was

held as under: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-

settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in

a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at

the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence

6

(2020) 13 SCC 791

14

and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not

be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders

reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted

particularly where the accused is charged of having committed

a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would

suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the

court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the

following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in

case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or

apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the

charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh

(2002) 3 SCC 598] and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas,

(2001) 6 SCC 338.)”

24. Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of bail,

in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [Jayendra Saraswathi

Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 481] , it was

held as under: (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16)

“16. … The considerations which normally weigh with the court

in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by

this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR

1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 215] and Gurcharan

Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi

Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] and basically

they are — the nature and seriousness of the offence; the

character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to

the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the

accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable

apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger

interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which

may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

25. After referring to para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528], in State of U.P. v. Amarmani

Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC

(Cri) 1960 (2)] , it was held as under: (Amarmani Tripathi case [State of

U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21] , SCC p. 31, para 18)

“18. It is well-settled that the matters to be considered in an

application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or

reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed

the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of

the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the

accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,

behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)

likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable

apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of

bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad

Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280]

and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118

: 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] ]. While a vague allegation that the

accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be

15

a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that

his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if

there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert

justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. It is also settled principle that economic offences constitute as a class

apart in the context of considering bail applications, as has been noted by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin

Johari

7

, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI

8

and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar

9

.

Such cases involve deep-rooted conspiracies and massive siphoning of

public funds, which pose a direct threat to the national financial health and

the moral fabric of society, warranting a cautious approach to bail,

particularly those alleged to be the “kingpin” with the utmost seriousness.

Explaining this, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.

Chidambaram case referred to supra, held as follows;

“23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side

including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could

be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same

inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to

ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However,

while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is

required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will

have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case.

Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases

of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would

fall under the category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while

considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to

deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against

the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence

is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is

alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of

offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that

would be normally applied.In that regard what is also to be kept in

perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it

is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such

7

(2019) 9 SCC 165

8

(2013) 7 SCC 466

9

(2017) 13 SCC 751

16

bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the

bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that

irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another

case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it

may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to

be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the

presence of the accused to stand trial.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. Viewed together, from the precedents discussed above, in the context

of economic offences, while considering an application for bail, the Court is

required to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of the

evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment that a conviction

may entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances peculiar to the

accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused

at trial, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the

larger interests of the public/State, and other similar considerations.

18. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz.,

Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote,

10

at para 3; Ajwar v.

Waseem

11

at para 17 it was cautioned that at the stage of granting bail,

detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits

of the case should be avoided. Thus, though a prima facie case satisfaction

is necessary, an exhaustive exploration of the merits should be avoided.

19. It is also settled in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan

12

, at

para 20, that while an accused possesses the right to file successive bail

applications, the Court has a mandatory duty to consider the reasons for

10

(1980) 2 SCC 559

11

2025 INSC 968

12

(2004) 7 SCC 528

17

previous rejections and record fresh grounds for a new decision. Any bail

order that lacks such reasoning or fails to consider the gravity of the offence

suffers from a non-application of mind. Further, in State of Tamil Nadu v.

S.A.Raja

13

at para 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for a successive

bail application to be maintainable, there must be a substantial change in

circumstances rather than mere cosmetic updates.

20. It is also well settled that parity is not an absolute claim for grant of bail

and it applies only when the roles of the individuals are similar in nature.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Another,

14

held that in the context of bail applications, parity is focused on

the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being

the only common factor between the accused persons. It was explained that

when weighing an application on parity, it is “position” that is important and

that this requirement of “position” is not satisfied solely by involvement in the

same offence; rather, it refers to the role of the accused in the commission of

the crime, including the nature and extent of his involvement.

21. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement

15

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that Article 21 serves as a constitutional safety valve

that can override even the most stringent statutory bars to bail. It was held

that 17 months of pre-trial incarceration without the trial commencing

constitutes a violation of the right to liberty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also

13

(2005) 8 SCC 380

14

2025 INSC 1370

15

(2024) 12 SCC 660

18

emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention must not be utilized as a tool

for punishment, as punishment should only follow a formal conviction.

Additionally, in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb

16

, it was held that gross delay

in trial disposal justifies the invocation of Article 21, even in matters governed

by laws with restrictive bail provisions. This position of law has also been

recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Dham v Directorate

of Enforcement.

17

22. In the case at hand, the allegations levelled against the Petitioners /

Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 are undoubtedly serious in nature and pertain to

economic offences involving substantial public interest. At the same time, it is

trite that gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail,

particularly when the investigation is substantially completed and the

Accused have been in custody for a considerable period.

23. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners / Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 are

in judicial custody and that the charge sheet has already been filed. The

investigation, insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, appears to have been

completed. No specific recovery of incriminating material or proceeds of

crime from the Petitioners is placed before this Court at this stage. The

material relied upon by the prosecution, including statements and CDRs, are

matters to be tested during the course of trial.

24. The Petitioners / Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 have been in custody for a

substantial period following dismissal of the earlier bail application.

16

(2021) 3 SCC 713

17

2026 INSC 12

19

Prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly in cases involving

voluminous documentary evidence and multiple Accused, would inevitably

delay conclusion of trial.

25. Admittedly, Accused No.38, with whom the Petitioners / Accused

Nos.8, 35 and 36 alleged to have a nexus in the alleged crime, has been

granted bail. The apprehension expressed by the State regarding possible

tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is noted. However, the

prosecution has not placed any specific material to indicate that Accused

Nos.8, 35 and 36 have attempted, during custody or otherwise, to interfere

with the investigation. The investigation against them being substantially

complete, the likelihood of prejudice to the prosecution case can be

adequately mitigated by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions.

Further, it is relevant to note that other co-accused, who are similarly placed

in terms of the nature of allegations, have already been enlarged on bail.

Though the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied

mechanically as has been noted earlier, no material distinction has been

demonstrated to justify a differential treatment resulting in continued

detention of Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36.

26. As also discussed, prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly where the

report is filed, investigation is substantially complete, cognizance of offences

is not yet taken, and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time,

may infringe the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Having regard to the period of custody undergone by

20

Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36, the stage of the proceedings, the absence of

material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with the trial, and the

principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this Court is of the

considered view that further incarceration of Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 is

not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.8, 35

and 36 are entitled to the benefit of bail.

27. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos.27 of 2026, 13503 and 13504 of

2025, are allowed and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall be

released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall execute

personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with

two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall surrender their

passports, if any, before the trial Court and shall not leave India without prior

permission of the said Court.

(iii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not leave the

limits of the State without giving intimation to the Investigating Officer. The

Investigating Agency shall furnish their Whatsapp mobile number to the

Petitioners for the purpose of convenience.

(iv) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall appear before

the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with

further investigation, if any.

21

(v) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not directly or

indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any

prosecution witness.

(vi) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not contact any

of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.

(vii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall file their

affidavits before the trial Court disclosing all their movable and immovable

properties, bank accounts, demat accounts, business interests, and financial

holdings, whether held individually or jointly within a period of two weeks

from the date of their release.

(viii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not make or

publish or disseminate any information, statement, or post whether in print,

electronic or social media concerning the present crime till conclusion of the

trial.

(ix) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not alienate,

encumber, or create third-party interests in any property disclosed by them or

identified by the prosecution, without prior permission of the trial Court.

(x) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall not operate or

manage any company, firm, or bank account alleged to have been used in

connection with the offence, except with prior intimation to the Investigating

Agency.

22

(xi) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall furnish their

active mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all

times and any change shall be intimated forthwith.

(xii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 shall appear before

the Investigating Agency once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between

10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till further orders.

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution

shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only

for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be

construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dt.06.03.2026

Note: Issue C.C today

B/o.

Dinesh

23

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 13503 & 13504/2025 and 27 /2026

Dated:06.03.2026

Dinesh