APHC010357792026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3604]

MONDAY, THE 7

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5763/2026

Between:

1. DONTHIREDDY VASUDEVA REDDY, S/O SRI D. VENKATESWAR

REDDY, AGEDABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR,APSBCL, R/O FLAT NO. 602,

MYSCAPE MEA, A BLOCK, NANAKRAMGUDA,RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT, TELANGANA.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH. THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

CID POLICE STATION, MANGALAGIRI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS

praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of

Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner/accused No. 1 in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 11/2026 dated

10.02.2026 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District

and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 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 order that Accused No. 1 shall not

2

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

be arrested, produced, or taken into custody for interrogation in connection

with Crime No. 11 of 2026 on the file of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri,

including pursuant to any P.T. (Prisoner Transit) Warrant that may be issued

at the instance of the Respondent-State, and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 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 the

Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime

No. 11 of 2026 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri registered for

the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B

IPC, Sections 111, 212, 217 and 317 of the BNS and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10,

12, 13(1) and 13(2) of the PC Act pending disposal of the main Criminal

Petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. V SAI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA

The Court made the following:

3

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5763 OF 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟) by the

petitioner/accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with crime

No.11 of 2026 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri of the offences under

Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and Section 111(1), 212,

217 and 317(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as

„BNS‟).

2. Case of the petitioner in brief is thus:

(a) The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR and Vigilance Report are

that while functioning as Managing Director of APSBCL of the Andhra

Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (hereafter after referred to as

„APSBCL‟) along with other accused conspired to replace the then District

Level liquor transportation system contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.357 dated

16.08.2019 with a centralized state-level transportation policy, floated tenders

in September and October, 2020 and tailored the same in favour of M/s.

Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited and subsequent tender tenders

of 2023 in favour of M/s. Prasad Transports, without approval of the

competent authority are not true and correct. The transportation contracts in

question have long since concluded, the petitioner ceased to be Managing

Director of APSBCL well before registration of the instant crime and the entire

record basing upon the allegations are ceased.

(b) The petitioner/accused No.1 filed petition in Crime No.251 of 2026 and

having considered the memo filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the same

is dismissed to approach the appropriate Court vide order dated 30.04.2026.

Subsequently, petitioner/accused No.1 filed another application in

4

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1124 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest and the

same is also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2026.

(c) The petitioner/accused No.1 was earlier examined in Crime No.21 of

2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri registered in respect of the alleged

irregularities from 2019 to 2024 and the allegations in the instant crime are

substantially similar and overlapping in the subject matter. The Director of

Enforcement registered ECIR/HYZO/17/2026 dated 22.05.2026 arrested this

petitioner/accused No.1 on 11.06.2026 and since then, he has been

languishing in judicial custody. Though he is in custody, petitioner/accused

No.1 moved application seeking anticipatory bail and the apprehension of

petitioner is well founded and genuine. There is no specific or demonstrated

necessity for custodial interrogation as he has already been arrested and

examined and arrest of the petitioner/accused No.1 is nothing but violation of

personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner has taken

official and institutional decisions and they cannot be construed as criminal

conspiracy.

(d) Being Managing Director, APSBCL, he had addressed letter dated

31.07.2020 seeking permission to float a centralized tender, Government

positively responded vide Memo dated 04.09.2020, tenders are issued

through the Government‟s e-procurement platform, technical and financial

evaluation committees participated in the scrutiny of bids, M/s. Sigma Supply

Chain Solutions Private Limited was declared as L-1 bidder and the contracts

are renewed and subsequent tenders of 2023, another company stood as

successful bidder, however, vigilance report negated all these procedures

adopted by the Government in implementing the new policy. Government has

not issued any instructions to discontinue the said policy and in fact, the policy

was implemented openly and permitted to continue for more than three years

without any intervention.

5

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

(e) The loss of Rs.195.33 crores is unverified, defective and internally

inconsistent and there is no basis for it. Vigilance authorities failed to consider

the expenses, sales, income and other allied aspects in calculating the said

amount. No concrete material against the petitioner and his individual role is

particularized. There is much delay in conducting enquiry, in registering the

instant crime and unexplained delay in registration of this crime, supported the

defence of the petitioner/accused No.1 and there is no requirement of seeking

custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused No.1.

(f) Finally, the petitioner has fixed residence, long record of Government

service and deep roots in society, he is already in judicial custody in the ECIR.

Statements of all material witnesses, Government officials and contractors

have already been recorded. Petitioner undertakes to abide by each of the

conditions enumerated in Section 482(2) of BNSS.

3. During arguments, learned Senior Counsel for respondent submitted

that they have filed detailed counter in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2026 in the

application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail before the Special

Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada and the same may be

considered as counter in this case. Learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.1 fairly conceded to consider the said counter in this

case. Refuting the defences taken by the petitioner/accused No.1,

respondent filed counter, wherein, inter alia, contended as follows:

(a) Petitioner is not an ordinary accused implicated on vague allegations

and he was the then Managing Director of APSBCL and the investigation

reveals that he occupied the central official position through which the liquor

transportation tender process was alternated, controlled, manipulated and

continued to confer undue advantage upon pre-selected entities, thereby

causing huge wrongful loss to APSBCL and the public exchequer. The

existing binding Government framework under G.O.Ms.No.357 dated

16.08.2019 which mandated district-level transportation arrangements through

District Committees, was consciously bypassed without lawful amendment,

6

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

relaxation or approval, and the said deviation was used as a mechanism to

concentrate control over the entire State-level transportation process. During

enquiry, Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted enquiry, collected

records from APSBCL, examined the manner in which the transportation

system was altered, verified the tender process and submitted a report. The

Government did not grant any relaxation or amendment of G.O.Ms.No.357.

The investigation reveals that the tender conditions, eligibility criteria and

tender structure were not framed through an independent and transparent

procurement exercise. The successful entity in Phase-I was not merely a

successful bidder in an ordinary open competition and there was prior

coordination, advance planning, internal arrangements and pre-identification

of the entity before the tender process was concluded.

(b) The prosecution case concerns the entire chain of events namely

unauthorized change from district-level to State-level tendering, preparation of

tender documents in advance, tailoring of tender conditions, restricted

competition, use of dummy or supporting bidders, inflated rates, award of

contract, repeated extensions and later subcontracting arrangements through

which wrongful gain was generated and they are all carried forward under the

authority, directions and control of the petitioner/accused No.1.

(c) The complaint and preliminary enquiry reveals loss in the range of

Rs.200 corores to 400 crores and the investigation presently indicates

wrongful loss of approximately Rs.188.27 crores to APSBCL/Government

exchequer. The petitioner being the Managing Director of APSBCL did not

protect the corporation from avoidable expenditure and not to facilitate inflated

public contracts. Though objections were raised in respect of higher rates and

directions issued by the Government to prevent subcontracting, petitioner

failed to implement corrective measures and permitted continuation of the

same system.

7

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

(d) The case is not a simple documentary irregularity and the investigation

concerns a larger conspiracy involving prior planning, coordination with private

entities, dummy bidding, EMD arrangements, forged or suspicious documents,

subcontracting, illegal commissions, routing of proceeds and identification of

financial beneficiaries and mere seizure of documents does not reveal the full

conspiracy. Economic offences of this nature are not discovered like ordinary

crimes and requires scrutiny of records, vigilance enquiry, verification of

official files, examination of procurement process, digital forensic analysis,

financial comparison and identification of beneficiaries and after following due

process, the instant crime is registered. The technical objections taken by the

petitioner/accused No.1 in respect of the status and punishable Sections

cannot be taken at this stage.

(e) The petitioner/accused No.1 is already shown as accused in another

serious crime relating to the liquor scam and his status, position and influence

make the risk of interference with investigation more serious and many

relevant persons were either subordinate are dealt with under his authority, or

were connected with the tender and transport process and granting

anticipatory bail at this stage would create real and reasonable apprehension

of influencing witnesses, coordinating versions and frustrating recovery of

further material. The investigation of the petitioner is not sufficient in the facts

of the present case and the investigating agency is still examining the

complete end-to-end conspiracy, including pre-tender planning, tender

manipulation, illegal extensions, sub-contracting, flow of illegal commissions,

role of related persons and financial beneficiaries etc. and with other formal

denials, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Arguments:

(a) Heard Ms. Liz Mathew, learned senior counsel representing Sri V. Sai

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1, Sri B. Adinarayana

Rao, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned special

public prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant.

8

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

(b) Petitioner/Accused No.1:

(i) Entire investigation in this crime is being conducted in procedure unknown

to law and is an act of malicious exercise of investigative powers.

(ii) The coordinate bench of this Court has made observations about the

conduct of prosecution, application of mind of the learned Special Judge and

participation of the petitioner in the investigative process etc.

(iii) Over implications in the first information report are not applicable to the

petitioner/accused No.1 and the administrative decisions taken by the

petitioner shall not be treated as conspiracy.

(iv) There is absolutely no allegation of entrustment and without any allegation

of entrustment, there is no offence of breach of trust which can be said to be

invoked.

(v) As per the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940)

Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr

1

, both offences under Section 406 and 420

are independent and distinct and two offences cannot coexist simultaneously

in the same set of facts.

vi) As per Section 111 of BNS, to show organized crime syndicate, more than

one charge sheet ought to have been filed before the competent court within

the preceding period of ten years and prima facie record reveals that the said

section does not attract against the petitioner.

(vii) The investigation in respect of the present allegations is already carried

out by the investigating agency in Crime No.21 of 2024 and the power to

arrest must answer the test of necessity and cannot be exercised

mechanically or in a manner which frustrates the liberty of an accused or

trumps orders of bail as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal v.

CBI

2

.

1

2024 10 SCC 690

2

2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550

9

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

(viii) As per the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh and

Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors

3

, successive registration of FIRs and

arrests deployed to keep an accused in custody despite an order of bail

amounts to trumping the bail order and the accused would be entitled to relief

in the subsequent cases as well.

(ix) The instant crime is registered on 10.02.2026 while the petitioner was in

judicial custody in Crime No.21 of 2024 and the same was never disclosed to

the learned trial court which granted bail on 17.04.2026.

(x) The learned Special Judge failed to consider the aspects regarding

necessity for custody of the petitioner/accused No.1.

(xi) The petitioner has already been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate

in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026 on 11.06.2026 relating to the present crime.

(xii) While considering application for anticipatory bail, court is required to

focus on the exact role attributed to the accused whose application is under

consideration; the case of each accused has to be seen on its own footing as

held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State

of Maharashtra

4

.

(C) Respondent/Complainant:

(i) There is no connection between the first case in Crime No.21 of 2024 and

this case. This case specifically concerns the transportation, tender

arrangement and the change from district level to state level tendering etc.

and whether those transactions constitute the very same transaction in Crime

No.21 of 2024 is a matter requiring substantive comparison of the two cases

and cannot simply be assumed in this application.

(ii) Petitioner/accused No.1 is principle offender and being Managing Director

of APSBCL, he has introduced State-level transportation process so as to

3

2026 SCC OnLine SC 208

4

(2011) 1 SCC 694

10

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

facilitate contracts in favour of selected entities at inflated rates and proposal

to change the transportation system, preparation of tender documents, tender

conditions, cancellation and re-tendering, approval of contracts, execution of

agreements, processing of payments and extensions were all carried forward

under his authority, directions and control.

(iii) Petitioner also pressurized the officials and persons connected with the

transportation process to act in accordance with his directions. So far,

investigation indicates wrongful loss of approximately Rs.188.27 crores to

APSBCL and the loss may be upto Rs.200 crores to 400 crores. In complex

economic offences and corruption cases, custodial interrogation has a distinct

purpose and the petitioner was the head of the very corporation, whose files,

officers and decisions are under investigation and as such, his custodial

interrogation is necessary.

(iv) Petitioner/accused No.1 is already shown as accused in another serious

crime relating to the liquor scam and his status, position and influence make

the risk of interference with investigation more serious. The principles in

Arvind Kejriwal and Binay Kumar Singh and Another (supra) cannot be

applied to the present facts of the case as the instant crime was registered

very long prior to the release of the petitioner/accused No.1.

(v) Custodial interrogation is independently necessary to unearth material in

respect of preparation of tender documents, modification of tender conditions,

cancellation of retendering, alleged supporting participation, EMD and

financial arrangements, acceptance of transportation rates, repeated

extensions, subcontracting, coordination with private persons etc.

(vi) The gravity of the offence, magnitude of loss and official position of the

petitioner shall be taken into consideration and if the petitioner is enlarged on

anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of feeing from justice, likelihood of

influencing witnesses and as such, custodial interrogation is required.

11

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

(vii) At this stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a

meticulous trial like appreciation of each item of material and the material

discloses a prima face case and as such, custodial interrogation is required.

(viii) Even the order in Crl.P.Nos.6456, 6463 & 6467 of 2026 concerns the

legality of the particular arrest and consequential remand effected on

20.07.2026 and it cannot be enlarged into a perpetual prohibition against

lawful arrest or custodial interrogation in this case and even as per the said

order, SIT does not preclude from continuing the investigation and directed

the petitioner to cooperate the SIT. Further, challenging the said orders, the

State of Andhra Pradesh filed special leave petitions before the Hon‟ble Apex

Court.

(ix) Learned senior counsel for respondent/complaint relied upon the following

judgments:

i) Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

5

.

While deciding the issue regarding constitutional mandates in respect of

arrest, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that an earlier arrest being held illegal for non-

compliance with communication of grounds does not create permanent

immunity and if required, again an application for remand or custody, can be

moved along with reasons and on such application, the Magistrate shall

decide the same.

ii) State Rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma

6

.

Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than

questioning an accused protected by anticipatory bail; it may be necessary to

elicit useful information or concealed material. Post-arrest bail considerations

cannot simply be imported into pre-arrest bail.

iii) Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (supra).

5

2026 1 SCC 500

6

1997 7 SCC 187

12

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

No legal impediment to arrest a person already in custody for investigation,

whether in the same or another offence.

Supports independent SIT investigation despite ED custody.

Timing/evergreening principle relied up on by the petitioner, distinguishable

because the CBI had not arrested for about 22 months and acted immediately

after bail in the ED case.

iv) Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement

7

.

Money laundering depends upon the proceeds of crime arising from

scheduled criminal activity. If the scheduled offence itself ceases to survive in

the legally recognized manner, PMLA prosecution cannot remain founded on

it.

Supports the foundational importance of SIT investigation into Crime No.11 of

2026.

v) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

8

.

Disputed applicability of a penal/predicate provision should not be finally

adjudicated at anticipatory-bail stage. No mini-trial. Serious economic offences

require circumspection; pre-arrest protection may prejudice effective

investigation and collection of concealed material.

vi) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI

9

.

Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracy and substantial public

funds constitute a class apart. Relevant considerations include gravity,

material, position/influence of accused, possibility of interference and larger

public interest.

5. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on

record including counter filed by the respondent/complainant in

7

(2023) 15 SCC 91

8

(2019) 9 SCC 24

9

(2013) 7 SCC 439

13

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2026 and the written arguments filed by the petitioner and

respondent, the point that would arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner established grounds to grant

interim order/anticipatory bail in Crime No.11 of 2026

of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri?”

6. Crux of the prosecution case is, existing government framework under

G.O.Ms.No.357 dated 16.08.2019 which mandated district level transportation

arrangements through district committees was consciously bypassed without

lawful amendment, relaxation or approval and the said deviation was used as

a mechanism to concentrate control over the entire state level transportation

process and to facilitate contracts in favour of selected entities at inflated rates

and further, petitioner/accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 9 and others are

responsible for the said violations for their own pecuniary benefits and basing

on the vigilance and enforcement department report, this crime is registered

and investigation is being conducted by the respondent/complainant.

7. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is apposite to mention the

admitted facts and they are as follows:

a) Petitioner served as Managing Director of APSBCL during the relevant

period. Petitioner/accused No.1, accused No.3 and accused No.4 filed this

petition and petitions in Crl.P.No.4189 of 2026 and Crl.P.No.3077 of 2026

respectively. Petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.21 of 2024 and was

arrested on 21.02.2026. While the petitioner was in judicial custody in that

case, the instant crime is registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420,

468, 471 r/w 120-B IPC and Sections 111, 212, 217 and 317 BNS alleging

manipulation of the liquor transportation, tender process of APSBCL. In Crime

No.21 of 2024, petitioner/accused No.1 was enlarged on bail vide order dated

17.04.2026 in Crl.P.No.482 of 2026. After registration of the First Information

Report in this case, prosecution filed memo adding offences under Sections 7,

7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Enforcement Directorate arrested the petitioner in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026

14

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

on 11.06.2026. Petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2026,

seeking anticipatory bail and the same is dismissed by the learned trial court

vide order dated 01.07.2026. Since the petitioner was arrested by the

Enforcement Directorate, prosecution filed a petition before the trial court,

seeking production transit warrant and the same is allowed and accordingly,

production transit warrant was issued. Consequently, petitioner/accused No.1

was taken into custody from the Central Prison, Chanchalguda and produced

before the learned trial court and then, he was remanded to judicial custody.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner/accused No.1 and accused

No.4 preferred Crl.P.Nos.6463 and 6456 of 2026 to quash the remand orders

dated 20.07.2026. Having considered the material placed in Crl.P.Nos.6456 &

6463 of 2026, coordinate bench of this Court quashed the remand orders

dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned trial court and feeling aggrieved by

the same, respondent preferred SLP (Crl) Nos.15850-15851 of 2026 before

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and the same is pending. When second

time this matter is posted before this bench on 20.08.2026, heard arguments

in all the matters simultaneously and reserved for orders.

8. Since averments of the petition, counter and arguments of both sides

are mentioned in detail, they are not reproducing again, to avoid repetition.

9. With regard to the maintainability of this petition, it is to be noted that in

Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Another

10

, while dealing with

the right of an accused who is already in judicial custody to file anticipatory

bail application in respect of other crime, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that there is

no restriction in the text of Section 438 or the scheme of the Code of Criminal

Procedure precluding a person from seeking anticipatory bail in relation to an

offence while being in custody in relation to another offence and in the

absence of any such restriction, there would be no valid reason to read any

prohibition in the text of Section 438 of the Code, to preclude a person in

custody from seeking anticipatory bail in relation to different offences.

10

(2024) 10 SCC 336

15

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

10. The petitioner/accused No.1 is already in judicial custody in

ECIR/HYZO/17/2026, his previous remand order in this case is quashed by

this court vide order dated 13.08.2026. As per the version of the petitioner,

again the prosecution filed another petition seeking production transit warrant

and it is pending. So, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.1, he has reasonable apprehension of arrest in the

instant case and as such, this petition is absolutely maintainable.

11. While disposing the petitions in Crl.P.Nos.6456 & 6463 of 2026,

coordinate bench of this Court elaborately discussed the aspects regarding

grounds of arrest, rights of accused, precautions that are to be taken by the

police and certain other aspects regarding registration of the instant crime etc.

The instant petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail which is altogether

different aspect. So, having considered the scope of Section 482 BNSS,

nature of offence, allegations leveled against the petitioner, stage of

investigation, settled legal principles etc., this petition has to be disposed of.

12. Now, it has to be seen that whether the petitioner/accused No.1

established his case to answer the point in the affirmative and in his favour.

As per the version of the petitioner/accused No.1 allegations leveled in this

case are already investigated into in Crime No.21 of 2024, official,

independent and other witnesses are examined, collected material regarding

liquor transportation allegations and only to harass the petitioner/accused

No.1, this case is pressed into service and per contra, the said contention is

counteracted by the prosecution on the ground that multiple issues are

involved in the allegations in respect of liquor transportation and during

investigation in Crime No.21 of 2024, SIT unearthed certain information

regarding liquor transportation and to find out total scam details for bypassing

G.O.Ms.No.357 without approval of the Government, separate investigation is

required and except few accused, other accused in both the cases are not one

and the same.

16

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

13. Initially in the year 2024, basing on the enquiry report dated 23.09.2024,

the case in Crime No.21 of 2024 was registered of the offence under Sections

420, 409, 120B Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟)

alleging that internal committee of senior officers of the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Department is constituted to inquire into the allegations and after

examination of records, committee found: (i) Suppression of the established

popular brands and unfair discrimination in allocation of OFS over a period of

time leading to almost disappearance of some brands from the market; (ii)

Favorable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in

violations of the existing norms giving them undue market share and

competitive advantage; (iii) The procurement system was shifted to manual

process giving scope for manipulation in OFS against the previous system of

automated OFS compromising the integrity or the process etc. In the enquiry

report of the internal committee, it is highlighted about the issues regarding

suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential allocation, orders for

supply violation etc.

14. Further, having considered the vigilance report No.52 (C.No.5117/V &

E/D1/Engg/2025) dated 25.11.2025 along with its enclosures received from

the Director General, GA (V&E) Department, the instant crime is registered of

the offences under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code, 111(1),

212, 217, 317(1) BNS and allegations in this case are in respect of

transportation-tender conspiracy, displacement of the district-level mechanism

under G.O.Ms.No.357, pre-tender preparation, Sigma and later Prasaad

Transports, controlled/dummy bidders, EMD financing, tend er rate

manipulation, extensions, prohibited sub-contracting, commission structures

and the resultant financial flows.

15. Admittedly, total allegations are in respect of alleged violations and

fraud occurred in APSBCL. As per the findings in vigilance report No.52

(C.No.5117V&E/D1/Engg/2025) dated 25.11.2025, a systematic and well

orchestrated conspiracy involving senior APSBCL officials, politically exposed

17

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

persons, their benamis who collectively manipulated the liquor transportation

tender process between 2020 and 2024 to siphon off massive public funds,

willfully violated the G.O.Ms.No.357 dated 16.08.2019 introduced state-level

transportation, tender process tailored to benefit specific companies of

accused Nos.3 to 5, inflated cost of liquor transport from Rs.19.68 crores to

Rs.35.57 crores, caused loss of approximately Rs.195.33 crores and the

funds were routed through fake vendors. As per the version of the

petitioner/accused No.4, findings regarding the allegations of liquor

transportation are mentioned in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.21 of 2024

in the statements of LWs-142, 179/Anjani Kumar and 180 and at (i) and (ii) of

para 11.34 (generation and laundering of proceeds of crime from transport

tender floated by APSBCL), at para Nos.13.9 and 13.10 of prosecution

complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR/HYZO/33/2025. As

seen from the said paragraphs, there are some findings regarding liquor

transportation, involvement of the petitioner/accused No.4, accused Nos.1, 3

& 5, one Sh. Anjani Kumar, Ms. Sigma Chain Supply Solutions Private

Limited, TEKKR, Arroyo and Ezyload and total amount involved is

approximately Rs.3,500 crores.

16. It is also undisputed fact that the Crime No.21 of 2024 was registered

on 23.09.2024 of the offences under Section 420, 409 and 120B of the Code

and after completion of investigation, charge sheet laid of the offences under

Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code and Sections 111, 212,

217, 317 of BNS, petitioner/accused No.1 was in judicial custody for nearly

one year and was enlarged on bail on 17.04.2026 and before that, the instant

crime is registered on 10.02.2026 of the offence under Sections 420, 409,

468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code and Sections 111(1), 212, 217, 317(1) of BNS

and subsequently, filed memo adding Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(B)

and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

18

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

17. As per the version of the petitioner, only to keep him behind the bars,

this crime is registered and immediately after his release, tried to arrest again,

obtained production transit warrant, took custody of this petitioner and having

considered the material, the said remand orders are quashed in

Crl.P.Nos.6456 & 6463 of 2026 and again, the respondent is taking steps to

arrest him. In Arvind Kejriwal (supra), a crime was registered by the CBI

against the appellant and he was in judicial custody for 22 months in ED case

and after granting regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, CBI sought for

his custody and in such circumstances, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the

investigating agency must see the necessity of arrest before causing arrest of

a person. In this case, the petitioner/accused No.1 was enlarged on bail on

17.04.2026 and after ED arrested him in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026 on 11.06.2026,

respondent filed petition under Section 267 of Code of Criminal Procedure on

09.07.2026. In Binay Kumar Singh and another (supra), three crimes are

registered on 20.05.2025, 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 respectively and having

considered the facts and circumstances of that case, and also by discussing

the rights of the accused therein, Hon‟ble Apex Court granted bail to the

accused observing that successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep

the accused therein within the custody. In the present case at hand,

admittedly, two crimes are registered i.e. one in the year 2024 and the instant

crime is registered on 10.02.2026 and as per the prosecution case, basing on

the vigilance report dated 25.11.2025, the second crime is registered in

respect of specific allegations of liquor transportation tender process.

18. Since 11.06.2026, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been languishing in

judicial custody in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026 and as per the version of prosecution,

that case is registered under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in

respect of the financial crimes committed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and

others so as to seize their assets and confiscate the same and as such, the

said case is no way concerned with the ongoing investigation.

19

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

19. So far as contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.1 that Section 409 and 420 of the Code shall not run

together and to attract Section 111(1) of BNS, more than one charge sheet

must have been filed within the preceding ten years, this court is conscious

about the Sections of law and settled principles of law. While dealing with this

petition which is filed seeking anticipatory bail, over all material placed before

this court shall be taken into consideration.

20. As per the decision in Uday Chand and others v. Sheikh Mohd.

Abdullah, Chief Minister, J&K and others

11

relied upon by the petitioner,

before passing order enlarging the accused in one case, it is the bounden duty

of the authorities of the State concerned to appraise the court that any case or

cases were under investigation against any of the accused. As per the

version of learned senior counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1, prosecution

didn‟t bring to the notice of the learned trial court which granted bail to the

petitioner/accused No.1 in crime No.21 of 2024, about registration of this

crime. As per the version of prosecution, immediately after registration of this

crime, the same is forwarded to the learned trial court, however, it is not

clarified that whether during the course of the arguments it is brought to the

notice of the learned trial court or not, and neither party filed bail order copy in

Crl.P.No.482 of 2026.

21. With regard to the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and respondent in respect of custodial interrogation/entitlement of

the petitioner to get relief, it is to be noted that merely because custodial

interrogation is not required, itself is not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail

application. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K

12

, wherein it is

observed thus:

11

1983 (2) SCC 417

12

2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529

20

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common

argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,

therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a

serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is

made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to

grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant

aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an

application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which

the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that

does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be

ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.”

22. Inasmuch as discretion that is to be considered while deciding

anticipatory bail is concerned, Hon‟ble Apex Court has consistently

emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine,

particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public

money or complex financial crimes. The contention of the respondent/SIT that

though they examined the petitioner/accused No.1, he has not furnished all

details and not answered all questions. In this regard, it is to be noted that it is

settled principle of law that bail cannot be rejected solely on the ground that

the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer,

as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non cooperation. In a

recent case in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat

13

, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court held that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter

and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another and there would

be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must

confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be

satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. At the same

time, the contention of the petitioner that he has appeared before the

investigating officer and has joined the investigation do not vest a right of

granting anticipatory bail and the case made out aga inst the

petitioner/accused No.1 is certainly a relevant ground to consider this petition.

In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia

14

, it is held that the right of

anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a

13

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 557

14

(1995) 3 SCC 221

21

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights i.e.

safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.

23. Further, in P. Chidambaram (supra), it was observed as under:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to

secure not only the presence of the accused but several other

purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power

and the same has to be exercised 2 (2019) 9 SCC 24 sparingly. The

privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional

cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be

properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity

of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other

factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

70…………..

71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure

prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part

of the Article i.e. “…except according to a procedure prescribed by

law”.

72 to 77……

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy,

has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences.

Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the

economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok

Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2

SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences,

the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”

24. It is settled principle of law that pre-trial incarceration makes justification

depending upon the offences, heinous nature, term of the sentence prescribed

in the statue for such a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice,

tampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away

with the victims and witnesses and further, the court is under an obligation to

maintain balance between all stake holders and safeguard the interests of the

victim, accused, society and the state.

25. Prima facie perusal of both FIRs shows that, although the nature of the

allegations appears to be similar, analysis from the perusal of the instant first

information report, vigilance report No.52 dated 25.11.2025 and other

material, it can be culled out that the petitioner/accused No.1/Managing

22

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

Director of APSBCL and other accused violated G.O.Ms.No.357 and

committed serious financial irregularities through benami transactions and

caused loss to the government exchequer to a tune of Rs.195.33 crores by

introducing new state wise transportation tender policy without any prior

approval for their financial benefits. Petitioner/ accused No.1, accused Nos.3

and 4 are accused in both the cases. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case coupled with the aforementioned authorities

including the authorities relied upon by the both parties, this court is of the

considered view that at the stage of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS,

this Court is not expected to conduct a threadbare comparative analysis of

allegations in this case and in Crime No.21 of 2024 and hold a mini trial to

decide whether allegations are identical or not. Further, whether the

allegations in both crimes are same, overlapping or distinct, whether it is a

case of same transaction or different transactions, are all matters to be

decided on full facts and in a separate proceedings but not in a bail petition.

That exercise is to be done at the time of trial or in the quash petition.

Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that second FIR is not maintainable.

Plea of political vendetta/harassment/mala fides cannot be a ground for grant

of anticipatory bail when the material prima facie discloses commission of

cognizable offence involving huge loss to public exchequer. The allegations

are in respect of an economic offence affecting State revenue. Investigation is

at crucial stage. The argument that petitioner/accused No.1 is being harassed

by registration of successive crimes is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail.

26. For the foregoing reasons, without expressing any opinion touching the

merits of the case as to whether allegations in both cases are same or not,

and keeping in view of the gravity of allegations and as per the law laid down

by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre

(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to

exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is made

23

SUN, J

Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026

clear that observations made herein are only for disposal of this petition and

shall not influence the investigation or any other proceeding/trial.

27. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

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

closed.

________________________

SUNITHA GANDHAM, J

07.09.2026

Vns