“Blanket Protection Cannot Be Granted Based on Vague Allegations”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Observing No ‘Reasonable Apprehension of Arrest’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, Single Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation registered under Crime No.21 of 2024 by the C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh. The court found the petition premature, stating that the petitioner had not been named as an accused, no arrest was imminent, and no material was presented to justify the relief sought. Holding that anticipatory bail cannot be granted on the basis of vague apprehensions, the court concluded that the petition was not maintainable at this stage.
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament elected from the Rajampet constituency and affiliated with the YSR Congress Party, filed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail. The petition was filed in relation to Crime No.21 of 2024 registered at C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, for offences under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a report by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh alleging irregularities in the functioning of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) between October 2019 and March 2024.
The report highlighted suppression of popular brands, discriminatory allocation practices favouring new entrants, and manipulation of the Order for Supply (OFS) system by transitioning from an automated to a manual process. The Managing Director of APSBCL submitted a report recommending investigation by a specialised agency. The prosecution contended that these actions led to an estimated scam valued at Rs. 4,000 crores.
The petitioner argued that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. did not establish his involvement and termed them vague and unreliable. It was submitted that no specific material or memo linked him to the allegations and the attempt was politically motivated. The petitioner further asserted that as an MP, he had no role in the excise policy or operations of APSBCL, and that financial records indicated no revenue loss to the state.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, contended that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was grounded in material evidence such as the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one Mr. Satyaprasad and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Mr. Vasudeva Reddy, which allegedly mentioned the petitioner. A notice dated 18.03.2025 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, S.I.T., to the Bank of Maharashtra was cited, requesting statements of PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd., in which the petitioner's wife and mother are stakeholders.
In response, the State, represented by Senior Counsel Sri Sidharth Luthra, argued that the petitioner had not been named as an accused, nor summoned or issued any notice under the applicable provisions. It was submitted that anticipatory bail cannot be sought on vague fears or media reports. The counsel contended that the application was premature and amounted to a “fishing expedition.”
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao examined the petitioner’s claims and submissions of both parties, including multiple precedents cited. Referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, the court held that “Section 438(1) cannot be invoked based on vague and general allegations.” It was further observed, “Mere fear is not belief,” and any apprehension must be based on “concrete facts relatable to a specific offence.”
The court noted the reliance on judgments such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, and clarified the applicable principles post the decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, which mandated that “applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence.”
In regard to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. attributed to Mr. Vasudeva Reddy, the court stated that it contained “no details regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the offence, aside from a single, isolated sentence.” The court found no material that would constitute concrete grounds for reasonable belief of arrest.
Addressing the petitioner's assertion that investigation details were in the public domain, the court expressed concern over such disclosures, stating, “keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns,” and observed that such actions may compromise the integrity of the investigation.
On the issue of notices issued to banks for account details of companies associated with the petitioner’s family members, the court found that the petitioner himself was not a director of the concerned company and “issuance of the notice to the bank for details cannot serve as grounds for granting anticipatory bail.”
The petitioner had also referred to prior anticipatory bail orders involving public figures and sought similar relief. However, the court distinguished the circumstances in those cases, stating, “Given that the order was passed under the case’s specific circumstances, the petitioner is not justified in requesting that the said order be considered.”
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao noted that precedents prohibit issuance of anticipatory bail in cases where no specific accusations exist, reiterating from Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal that “a ‘blanket order’ of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed.”
The court stated, “The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence.” It concluded that such reasonable apprehension was not demonstrated by the petitioner in the present case.
The court dismissed the criminal petition and clarified that the petitioner remains free to approach the court if any adverse action is taken against him by the Respondent-State. The court recorded, “Although no accusations have been made against the petitioner at this stage, it is clear that an investigation is underway in Cr.No.21 of 2024 based on the allegation that the exchequer has suffered a loss of several thousand crores of rupees.” It further observed, “The investigation officer has yet to verify the credibility of the information, and there is no apprehension of arrest at present.”
In dismissing the request for advance notice prior to arrest, the court cited binding precedent from the Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani and Others, stating that “such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court.”
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No. 2904 of 2025 was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kalla Guna Sekhar, Advocate
Case Title: P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Neutral Citation: APHC010135872025
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 2904 of 2025
Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
[Read/Download order]
