Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (May 16) denied anticipatory bail to accused persons P Krishna Mohan Reddy and K. Dhananjaya in the multi-crore AP liquor scam case. It reasoned that the investigation is at a crucial juncture and granting anticipatory bail might prejudice the case of the Respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh.

They served as secretary and OSD, respectively, in the office of ex-CM Jagan Mohan Reddy during the previous YSRCP regime.

Before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Reddy, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for Dhananjaya, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for Balaji Govindappa. They alleged political bias against the accused persons by the State in the investigation after the change of the Government. It was also said that the accused persons are fully cooperating with the investigation.

It is the case of the State that the accused persons, who were public servants, conspired to throttle the competitions and the normal distribution channels of liquor were given to only a particular group. Apparently, this case also went to the Competition Commission of India, where the case was eventually closed.

Whereas, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh. They vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail as it would prejudice their investigation at this crucial stage.

After an extensive arguments and counter-arguments, the Court ultimately refused to exercise its discretion powers in granting anticipatory bail. As for Balaji's case, in which Dave appeared, he informed the Court that Balaji has also been arrested and is presently in judicial remand.

When it was pointed out that an application has been filed to seek his police remand by Agarwal, Justice Pardiwala questioned how the accused could be brought back to police custody after being sent to judicial custody.

He said: "How can you send him to police custody and then bring him back to police custody? Impossible sir. Absurd! Is this is what is going on in the State? Absurd! Should we give you a direct judgment?"

The Court passed a separate order for Balaji: "In this case, the petitioner has already been arrested in CID police station, Manglagiri, State of Andhra Pradesh. We are informed that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While remanding for judicial custody, the investigating officer didn't pray for any police remand. After being remanded to judicial custody, according to the State, the IO has moved an application seeking police remand. We don't say anything in this regard because it will be for the court concerned to consider whether an accused once remanded to judicial custody thereafter IO can pray for police remand or not. It's a debatable issue. Be that as it may be, if any application for regular bail is filed, the same shall be looked into by the court concerned on its merits by applying well settled principles of regular bail in accordance with law."

As for the other two accused, the Court Ordered: ". It was also pointed out that one point of time the entire issue was looked into by the Competition Commission of India and it CCI didn't find anything what is being alleged today by the State.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail more particularly when the entire case put is effectuated by political bias of mala fides.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State vehemently submitted that no error could said to have been committed by the High Court when denying anticipatory bail. They would be that there is more than a prima facie case against petitioner and the investigation is at a very crucial stage. According to the State, there has been misappropriation as alleged of public exchequer amounting to more than 3000 crores. It was also submitted that the investigation agency may also deem fit for custodial interrogation if the need arises and if some good valid grounds are made out. In short, the submission on behalf of State is that at this point of time, the court may not exercise discretion powers for the grant of anticipatory bail as it may have its own implications in the further investigation.

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that we should not exercise our discretion for grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court has looked into the matter and declined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. The petitioners might have been interrogated also by the agency so far but at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that for the grant of anticipatory bail, we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it wants custodial interrogation. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case is made out or not, it is for the court concerned to look into.

In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point of time...at this stage we would like to observe, to make out a prima facie of political bias or mala fides, that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other materials on record. Political bias may have its own legal implications and that has to be looked into at some point of time. Today, what should be looked into is a prima facie case and we believe that there is some case today...it appears from the impugned order by the High Court that the High Court looked into few disclosures statements made by the co-accused and according to the High Court, such disclosure statements is admissible during trial...an attempt was made to persuade us that such statements can be looked into at the stage of considering anticipatory bail or regular bail. However, the law in this regard is very clear and we need not to say anything further.

Besided the above, we would like to make ourselves very clear that the State shall not adopt any third degree methods or shall not coerce or exert any pressure or bring any undue influence on any of the witnesses or the co-accused. Tomorrow if some material is brought on record to any court, be is high court or the supreme court, this may be looked into very seriously. It is expected of the investigating agency to carry out fair, impartial investigation more particularly in accordance with law.

Before we close this matter, we further make it clear that tomorrow if they are arrested, remanded and thereafter sent to judicial custody, any regular bail applications, the same shall be considered in its own merits. We need not to say that the grant of anticipatory bail differs from the principles of the grant of anticipatory bail. It is for the court concerned apply the correct principles of law for the grant of regular bail. With the aforesaid, these petitions disposed of. If the petitioners have any further apprehension that they are likely to be ill treat, they can approach the High Court, they can obtain the very same relief the High Court has granted to co-accused."

Case Details: P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH|SLP(Crl) No. 7532/2025