Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with a criminal case registered under serious charges including corruption and criminal conspiracy. The Court directed that the investigation be allowed to proceed unhindered, stating "granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners could potentially hinder the ongoing investigation." The Court further clarified that although a prima facie case of political bias could be made, such a claim alone was not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The case arises from a complaint lodged by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The allegations pertain to Crime No.21 of 2024, registered at the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The charges invoked include Sections 409, 420, 120-B read with Sections 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) along with Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 5A | Purchase Tax Can Apply Even If Sale Is Exempt | Provision Is A Distinct Charging Section

The prosecution's case canters around alleged irregularities in the allocation of Orders for Supply (OFS) in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL). An internal committee reported "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." Furthermore, the committee found "favourable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in violation of the existing norms, giving them undue market share and competitive advantage."

The MD of APSBCL noted in the report that manipulation had been enabled by shifting from an automated to a manual procurement system. The report recommended external investigation, leading to registration of the FIR. The complaint was filed by Mukesh Kumar Meena, Principal Secretary, based on internal findings. The FIR was registered on 23.09.2024.

Senior counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Vikas Singh appeared for the petitioners, arguing that the accused were retired public servants and that the case was politically motivated. They submitted that there was "no prima facie case worth the name against the petitioners" and assured the Court that their clients had been cooperating with the investigation.

They further submitted that "dubious methods and tactics for the purpose of extracting confessional statements from different witnesses by adopting third degree methods" were being used. In support of this claim, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the High Court had earlier allowed the presence of a lawyer during interrogation.

The defence also pointed to an earlier investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which reportedly found no such irregularities. However, the State argued that the CCI proceedings pertained to 2019–2021, while the present case involved the period from 2019 to 2024.

Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for the State, submitted that there was "more than a prima facie case against the petitioners" and that the case involved misappropriation of public funds to the tune of over Rs. 3,000 crores.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had earlier denied anticipatory bail on the ground that the "allegations are severe, and the investigating agency has not yet been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioners." The State stated that custodial interrogation might become necessary and would be impeded by a favourable order of anticipatory bail.

Detailed statistical data were placed before the Court regarding the alleged reduction in the market share of popular brands and the concurrent rise of newer, allegedly favoured brands:

"Brand Quantity in 2018-19: McDowell's Brandy - 22,73,086; in 2023-24 - 5. Market share in 2018-19: 23.41%, in 2023-24: 2.15%."

Other brands such as Imperial Blue Whisky, Kingfisher Beer, and Budweiser Beer showed similar declines. In contrast, brands like Ocean Blue Whiskey and Daru House Whiskey had increased market shares.

The prosecution also alleged "collection of approximately Rs. 3200 Crores in kickbacks for the liquor syndicate," and stated that "on average, the accused received Rs.50-60 crores per month in kickbacks."

The Court stated, "Having heard the learned counsel 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 the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail."

The Bench endorsed the High Court's findings, noting that "the High Court remained alive and very rightly to the apprehension of the investigating agency that the petitioners would influence the witnesses, considering particularly the high position they all held at one point of time."

It was further observed that, "Anticipatory bail to accused in cases of the present nature would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing of the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence."

While acknowledging the petitioners’ cooperation, the Court held, "by grant of anticipatory bail, we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it wants custodial interrogation."

On the issue of political bias, the Court clarified: "To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record."

The judgment included extensive observations on the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court stated, "We are of the considered opinion that such a confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail." It explained that such confessions must be "duly proved against the maker" and "clearly established by leading cogent evidence in the course of the trial."

Furthermore, the Court clarified: "Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial."

It also stated the principle that "an admission by one accused cannot be used against another co-accused," and cautioned courts to "first ascertain whether such person is actually a witness or an accused person, or likely to be an accused person in respect of the offence(s) alleged."

The Court added: "Where a confessional statement is otherwise excluded or inadmissible by virtue of Sections 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, respectively, there can be no question of such confessional statements being made admissible against another co-accused by stretching it with the help of Section 30 of the Evidence Act."

The Court ultimately held: "We are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point of time and the investigation should be permitted to proceed further."

It warned against coercive methods, stating: "The investigating agency shall not adopt any third-degree methods or shall not coerce or exert any undue pressure or bring any undue influence on any of the witnesses or any of the co-accused to make statements that may suit the State."

Also Read: Allahabad High Court : Court Cannot Afford To Be Perceived As Complicit | Dismisses Challenge To Interim Maintenance | Mandates Compliance With Section 125 CrPC Guidelines

The Court added that any such complaint would be "viewed very seriously" and stressed that the investigation must be "fair, impartial and transparent, more particularly, in accordance with law."

The judgment concluded with the clarification: "If the petitioners are ultimately arrested, remanded and thereafter sent to judicial custody and if any regular bail application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law."

The Special Leave Petitions were thus disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.; Dr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.; Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR; Ms. Akhila Palem Rami Reddy, Adv.; Ms. Palak Arora, Adv.; Mr. Sidharth Seem, Adv.; Mr. Sahil Raveen, Adv.; Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv.; Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.; Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv.; Mr. Vivek Rajan D.B., Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR; Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.; Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv.; Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv.; Mr. Manoviraj Singh, Adv.; Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv.; Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.; Mr. B.P. Naidu, Adv.; Mr. Dhanamjaya Dutt Shrimali, Adv.

Case Title: P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 725

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7532-34 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan 

[Read/Download order]