SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CRL.) NO. 7533-34 OF 2025
1. Since the issues involved in the two petitions i.e. SLP (Crl.) No. 7532 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7533 of 2025 wherein anticipatory bail is being prayed for are same and the challenge is also to the self-same common impugned order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati denying anticipatory to the petitioners, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 registered at CID Police Station, \angalagiri, Guntur District for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 12-B read with Sections 34 & 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) & Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. We need not delve much into the case of the prosecution as put up, more particularly, when the High Court has reproduced the same exhaustively in its impugned order dated 7-5-2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.4837/2025 and Criminal Petition No.4838/2025 respectively.
4. However, with a view to give a fair idea as to the case of the prosecution as on date, we may just reproduce a portion of the First Information Report which reads thus: -
“12. The Committee after examining of records found the following:
1. 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.
2. Favorable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in violations of the existing norms giving them undue market share and competitive advantage.
3. 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;
4. The MD, APSBCL reported that Committee has examined OFS (order for supply) data from 2018 onwards, detailed in annexures, but they could not ascertain the motive behind such discrimination and manipulations observed from the records and data related to the procurement process and other issues mentioned in the petitiorier, They recommended that an external specialized investigation agency may be advised to take up such action.
5. The MD, APSBCL on the basis of above committee reported that the matter may be examined and referred to a Specialized Agency for further necessary action.
6. The report has been examined and considering the seriousness of the matter as per the contents of the enquiry report of the Internal Committee mentioning suppression of brands, unfair discrimination preferential allocation OFS violation etc, the CID, Mangalagiri, AP is requested to take necessary action for investigation into the matter as recommended by the Internal Committee and the MD, APSBCL. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO The Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Mangalagiri, AP Sc/Sf. //FORWARDED :: BY ORDER// SECTION OFFICER. The complainant requested for necessary legal action in this regard. Copy of the complaint is enclosed herewith.
13. Action Taken: On 23.09.2024 at 22:00 hrs received an English typed report of Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, Principal Secretary to Government, Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.Rev-01/CPE/20/2024-VIG-IV, dated, 20.09:2024 from O/o the Addl.DGP, CID, A.P., along with memo in C.No.7020/EOW C-14/CID-AP/2024, dated: 23.09.2024 with instructions to register a case. As per the instructions I registered the same as case in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 120(B) IPC is registered at CID PS, A.P, Mangalagiri on 23.09.2024 át 22:00 hrs. The original FIR along with the complainant's report and enclosures submit to The Hon'ble Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada and copy of FIR along with complainant's report and enclosures sent to the 1.0. Sri T.Daiva Prasad, DSP, CID, RO, Kurnool for investigation and copies to all concerned.”
5. We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner namely P. Krishna Mohan Reddy and Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner namely K. Dhananjaya Reddy.
6. On the other hand, we heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently submit that their clients at the relevant point of time were holding public office. They were public servants. They have retired from service. However, due to political vendetta and bias, they have been arrayed in the alleged crime on the allegations that they are a part and parcel of a well-hatched criminal conspiracy.
8. It was further submitted that there is no prima facie case worth the name against the petitioners. In other words, there is no prima facie case worth the name at this point of time to deny anticipatory bail.
9. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that both these petitioners have been cooperating with the investigating agency. Their statements have been recorded. They have been interrogated and they shall continue to cooperate with the investigating agency till the charge-sheet is filed.
10.It was also pointed out, that the investigating agency has been adopting dubious methods and tactics for the purpose of extracting confessional statements from different witnesses by adopting third degree methods. It was pointed out that a Writ Petition had to be filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati seeking necessary relief in this regard and the High Court has passed an order permitting a lawyer to remain present at the time of interrogation.
11.It was further pointed out that at one point of time, the entire issue was looked into by the Competition Commission and the Competition Commission did not find anything what is being alleged today by the State.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, more particularly, when the entire case put up by the State is actuated by political bias or mala fides.
13.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in denying the anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
14.They would submit that there is more than a prima facie case against the petitioners. The investigation is at a very crucial stage. According to the State, there has been misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune to more than Rs.3,000 Crore. It was also submitted that the investigating agency may also deem fit to pray for custodial interrogation if need arises and if some good valid grounds are made out.
15.In short, the submission on behalf of the State is that at this point of time, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of grant of anticipatory bail as it may have its own implications in the investigation which is in progress and is at a crucial stage.
16.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 High Court has looked into the matter in details and thereafter, declined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for.
17.The High Court while reaching the conclusion that more than a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail to them, has observed thus: -
“22. According to the prosecution, the scheme in question favoured select liquor brands such as Adan and Leela, while sidelining well-established brands like Pernod Ricard and McDowell. As a result, several distilleries either shut down operations or diverted their products to other states Despite receiving consumer complaints regarding the quality of alcohol, no remedial measures were undertaken. The distilleries allegedly employed methods such as transferring funds to gold traders, procuring GST invoices, and remitting cash to the accused after deducting commissions. The investigation has revealed suspicious transactions amounting to approximately Rs 300-400 crores. In support of these allegations, the prosecution has produced records suspicious transactions involving Leela Agro and S.P.Y. Agro; bullion transactions entered into by Tilak Nagar Industries Limited: bullion invoices and ledger entries of Arham Bullion and Tiiak Nagar Industries Limited and details of entities that were found to be nonexistent.
25. The allegations against the petitioners are that they were responsible for the discontinuation of popular liquor brands and the promotion of favoured brands, collecting approximately Rs.3200 Crores in kickbacks for the liquor syndicate. The prosecution further claims that, on average, the accused received Rs.50-60 crores per month in kickbacks, with A.1 allegedly handing over these amounts to the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5009 of 2025 and Crl.P.No.4838 of 2025.
29. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State argues that the proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) pertain to the period from 2019 to 2021, whereas the allegations against the accused persons cover the period from 2019 to 2024. Therefore, the findings recorded by the CCI cannot be afforded significant weight in this context. The prosecution has relied upon sale transactions presented in a tabular form, and the details contained therein, prima facie, support the prosecution's case.
Brand Quantity in 2018-19 Quantity in 2023-24 McDowell's Brandy 22,73,086 5 Imperial Blue Whisky 20,21,955 7 Kingfisher Beer 1,02,47,566 11,82,388 Budweiser Beer 22,52,195 0 Brand Market share in 2018-19 Market share in 2023-24 McDowell's Brandy 23.41% 2.15% Kingfisher Beer 29.5% 3.21% Budweiser Beer 11.43% 1.25% S.No. Name of the Brand Quantity Intended 1 Ocean Blue Whiskey 2,76,706 2 Daru House Whiskey 68,83,420 3 Supreme Blend Whiskey 77,35,400 4 Brilliant Blend Whiskey 37,30,800 5 9 Sea Horse Whiskey 46,07,733 6 Andhra Gold Whiskey 20,61,711 7 Good Friend Whiskey 27,72,050 8 HD Whiskey 22,02,555
32 This Court views that the investigating officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion in a case containing severe allegations. With regard to the Prosecution's case, the Investigation remains incomplete. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners could potentially hinder the ongoing investigation. The allegations are severe, and the investigating agency has not yet been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioners. The established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of routine; it should only be provided when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.
36. The statements provided by several witnesses have underscored the petitioners' prima facie involvement in the criminal conspiracy associated with e Excise Policy. It cannot lose sight of serious allegations leveled by the prosecution and the evidences collected during the course of investigation and presented before this Court, which prima facie reveal the petitioners ‘role in the offence in question. The material placed on record, its face, suggests the petitioners involvement in the offence in question. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation is deemed essential to confront the petitioners with the gathered evidence and to unravel a broader conspiracy implicating the accused in the implementation of the Excise Policy.”
18.In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner while declining to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners as prayed for.
19.Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438. In corruption cases concerning influential persons, effective interrogation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which are likely to be concealed.
Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such condition would reduce to a mere ritual. 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.
20.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.
21.It was sought to be argued that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and are fully cooperating with the investigating agency and therefore, there is no need for custodial interrogation.
22.The petitioners might have been cooperating with the investigation and they might have been interrogated also by the investigating agency so far but, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that by grant of anticipatory bail, we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it wants custodial interrogation.
23.As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. reported in (2022)17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence etc.
24.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 for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into.
25.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 and the investigation should be permitted to proceed further.
26.At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
27.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. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta.
Section 30 of the Evidence Act
28.It appears from the impugned order that the High Court looked into few disclosure statements made by co-accused and according to the High Court, as such disclosure statements are admissible during trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the “Evidence Act”) those can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail.
29.The High Court in its impugned order has observed as under:
“20. The prosecution has also relied upon the confessional statements of co-accused persons to establish the petitioners' involvement in the commission of the offence. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners have strongly opposed the reliance on such confessional statements, contending that they are inadmissible in evidence. In contrast, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/State submits that the statements made by co-accused persons are subject to evaluation during trial, and it would be incorrect to contend that confessional statements made by an accused during interrogation cannot be considered for the purpose of connecting other accused persons. This Court is of the view that such disclosure statements made by co-accused can indeed be taken into consideration as investigative leads and. further, may be admissible during trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. It is erroneous to say that confessional statement made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
30.Since the High Court has touched Section 30 of the Evidence Act, we would like to say something in this regard. The said provision reads thus: -
“When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”
31.As per Section 5 of Evidence Act, only those facts or facts in issue which are considered relevant under Chapter II of the Act would be admissible as evidence. Section(s) 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, deals with the relevancy and admissibility of ‘confessions’ as evidence. Section 24 of the Evidence Act provides when a confession would be relevant by laying down a negative rule of relevancy and prescribing the general parameters when a confession would be considered irrelevant; namely when such confession is caused by either threat, inducement or promise.
32.Section(s) 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively are an exception to the aforesaid general rule of relevancy of confessions. Section 28 provides that where although any threat, inducement or promise was made to cause a confession, yet if such confession was made after the cessation, removal or eradication of such improper influence or impression, then such confession would be relevant. Section 29 on the other hand, expands the test of relevancy by prescribing a positive rule of when a confession would continue to be relevant and provides that a confession made under one particular type of promise i.e., a promise of secrecy or made as a result of any deception, intoxication or by one’s own volition in response to any question, would not render such confession irrelevant.
33.Section 25 of the Evidence Act, goes one step further, by providing that even if such confession is not hit by Section 24 i.e., it is not the result of any threat, inducement or promise and thus, considered relevant, still such confession would be inadmissible if it was made to a police officer. Section 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, however, carves out an exception to this. Section 26 provides that, a confession made by the accused to persons other than police officers would be inadmissible, if it was made whilst he was in police custody, unless such confession was made in the presence of a magistrate. Whereas, Section 27 only permits limited use of such statement only to the extent that a fact is discovered pursuant to disclosure statement which would connect the accused with the crime with authorship of concealment.
34.Section 30 of the Evidence Act, provides that a confession made by a person admitting his own guilt and at the same time implicating another person, such confession “may be taken into consideration” by the court against the maker as-well as against the person it is being made, if both of them are being “tried jointly”.
35.The Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. R reported in 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12 explained the significance of the expression “may take into consideration” used in Section 30. It observed that a “confession” does not come within the definition of evidence under section 3 of the evidence Act, as it is neither. required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the co-accused, and the same cannot be tested by cross-examination. Thus, although a confession against a co-accused, is not an evidence, yet as per Section 30, a court may take it into consideration and act upon it. However, the courts must be mindful that such confessions do not amount to proof, it is only one of the elements in the consideration of all other facts proved in a particular case, and therefore, there must be other evidence before such confession is taken into consideration. [See also: K. Hashim v. State of T.N., (2005) 1 SCC 237; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600].
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7534 OF 2025
1. This petitioner has already been arrested in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 registered at CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. We are informed that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While reminding him to judicial custody, the investigating officer did not pray for any police remand. After being remanded to judicial custody, according to the State, the investigating officer has now moved an application seeking police remand of the petitioner.
3. We do not say anything in this regard because it will be for the Court concerned to consider whether once an accused is remanded to judicial custody whether thereafter the Investigating Officer can pray for police remand or not.
4. Be that as it may, if any application for regular bail is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be looked into by the Court concerned on its own merits by applying the well-settled principles of grant of regular bail in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.......................................................... J. J.B. Pardiwala
.......................................................... J. R. Mahadevan
New Delhi,
16th May, 2025.