13 May 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law  

A Supreme Court ruling concerning an anticipatory bail application filed by a sitting Member of Parliament from the YSRCP party in Andhra Pradesh. The MP was implicated in Crime No. 21 of 2024, registered at the C.I.D., Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, for offenses under Sections 420, 409 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 318/4, 316/5 & 61/2 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

The case originated from a complaint lodged on August 26, 2024, by Mr. Y. Venkateswar Rao Srinivas, alleging widespread irregularities and corruption amounting to "thousands of crores of public money" in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) between October 2019 and March 2024. The complaint detailed a "Brand Killing and New Brand Promotion" modus operandi, where popular liquor brands were deliberately suppressed for not paying kickbacks, while new, allegedly spurious brands were promoted in exchange for huge sums from distilleries and suppliers. It was claimed that this scheme generated approximately INR 70-80 crores per month for the then-ruling party leaders.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after apprehending arrest, particularly due to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from Mr. Satyaprasad (a former Special Officer) and under Section 161 of CrPC from Mr. Vasudeva Reddy (former Managing Director of APSBCL).

The High Court initially denied the anticipatory bail, primarily stating that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was unfounded as there were no accusations against him in the FIR at that nascent stage of the investigation. The High Court also noted that the Investigating Officer was yet to verify the credibility of the information.

However, during the Supreme Court hearing, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, stated that prima facie material now exists indicating the petitioner's involvement, and he has since been arrayed as an accused in the FIR.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the High Court's initial denial was based on the State's earlier stance of no intention to arrest, decided not to examine the new material presented by the State. Instead, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:

• Re-evaluate the anticipatory bail plea, considering the new material that the State may present indicating the petitioner's involvement.
• Decide the plea based on well-settled principles for granting anticipatory bail.
• Consider whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner.
• Examine if the State's action is motivated by political vendetta.
• Consider all other grounds relevant to anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Furthermore, the State, through Mr. Rohatgi, assured the Court that the petitioner would not be arrested until the High Court makes a fresh decision. The petitioner is, however, required to join and fully cooperate with the investigation if interrogated. The High Court is directed to conclude the fresh consideration within four weeks.

Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 409., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 164., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973