1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7, in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the offences 409, 420, and 120-B read with Sections 34, 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(For short ‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1)(b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(For short ‘PC Act’).

2. Heard Sri K.Ramkanth Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.Mokshitha Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri PosaniVenkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.7 would submit that no prima facie case, is made out against the Petitioner, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC are entirely absent. Sections 409, 34, 37, and 120-B IPC are not applicable to the Petitioner, as there is no entrustment of property, fiduciary duty, conspiracy, or unlawful agreement. Mere presence at meetings does not constitute criminal liability, and the Petitioner’s role in the alleged OFS or kickbacks is unsupported by any evidence.Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation, travelled abroad with the knowledge of the investigating officer, and remains willing to assist. It is submitted that the call data records confirm his cooperation, and there is no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh((2021) 2 SCC 779), Gurbaksh Singh Sibbiav. State of Punjab((1980) 2 SCC 565), Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar((2014) 8 SCC 273) to emphasize that anticipatory bail is the rule, where no prima facie case exists.It is further submitted thatmere existence of a Look Out Circular cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 7282 of 2018. Arrest would serve no investigatory purpose and would amount to punitive detention. Grant of anticipatory bail would protect the Petitioner’s fundamental right to liberty while allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent/State would submit that the Petitioner has been shown to have actively participated in the organization of the illicit liquor trade and is alleged to have played a pivotal role in facilitating the issuance of Orders for Supply to preferred brands and distilleries, collecting kickbacks, and transferring illicit amounts through shell companies. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the evidence on record indicates that the Petitioner/Accused No.7 attended multiple meetings with the main Accused, including the meeting on 13.10.2019 at the house belonging to Vijaysai Reddy,Chiranjeevi Blood Bank, Hyderabad, where it was decided that OFS would be issued only to distilleries that agreed to pay kickbacks. Such participation constitutes prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

5. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary to unravel the financial trail, identify beneficiaries, confront him with documents and material already collected, and coordinate the ongoing investigation with co-accused who are in custody. The investigation is at an advanced stage, with multiple charge sheets filed and hundreds of witnesses examined, yet several critical aspects, particularly the movement of illicit funds and connections with shell companies, can only be clarified through custodial questioning. The Petitioner’s cooperation so far does not eliminate the necessity of custody, as documents alone are insufficient to trace complex transactions and links with other accused.

6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that denial of custodial interrogation at this stage would impede the investigation, frustrate the process of law, and may risk the destruction of evidence or concealment of financial trails. The allegations are serious in nature, involve organized criminal activity, and require active interrogation to ensure that the full extent of the conspiracy is exposed. Granting anticipatory bail at this juncture would, therefore, be premature and prejudicial to the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Determination by this Court

7. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. AdityaSarda,( 2025 SCC Online SC 764) held that:

                  “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court hasconsistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as amatter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving largescalefraud, public money or complex financial crimes.

                  ***

                  23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more resintegra thateconomic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rootedconspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offencesneed to be viewed seriously.They are considered as grave and seriousoffences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and therebyposing serious threats to the financial health of the country.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar &Anr(2025 INSC 1396), set aside an anticipatory bail granted to an accused individual charged with embezzling over ₹3 crores. While the High Court granted bail onthe grounds that half the money was returned and the accused was willing to disclose assets, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found this reasoning as untenable because it ignored a status report stating the accused was on the run and that his custodial interrogation was utmost required for a fair investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that granting extraordinary relief like anticipatory bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the accused's conduct constitutes a failure to apply relevant legal principles.

9. In the present case, the Petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.7, is alleged to have actively participated in organized criminal activity involving issuance of Orders for Supply (OFS) to preferred distilleries, collection of kickbacks, and movement of illicit funds through shell companies. Petitioner herein is the co-brother of Accused No.1. It is alleged that Accused No.1incorporated a Company (A.25) in the year 2020 immediately after change of Liquor Policy, effectively controlled the activities of the said Company through A.7 and diverted the kick-backs amounting to Rs.135.00 crores, transferred through shell companies, gold merchants and properties. The material gathered by the Investigating Agency would prima facie showhis active nexus with the prime accused.His presence at critical meetings, including on 13.10.2019 indicates active involvement in decisions central to the alleged offences.While the Petitioner contends that no prima facie case exists, the material, including documents, call records, and witness statements, suggest otherwise. Mere presence at meetings, in context with his coordination in financial transactions and facilitation of kickbacks, constitutes prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.Custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel complex financial trails, confront the Petitioner with evidence, and coordinate with co-accused in custody.It is also an admitted position that the petitioner left India on 28.02.2025; a Look Out Circular was issued on the same day; multiple notices under Section 179 BNSS were issued directing him to appear for investigation and a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued by the Special Court, and the petitioner is shown as absconding.

10. The allegations cannot be characterised as frivolous or motivated, nor is this a case of over-implication simpliciter, as the role attributed to the Petitioner is distinct and specific. The contention of the petitioner that he has been implicated solely on account of his relationship with Accused No.1 cannot be accepted in absolute terms. While mere relationship, by itself, is insufficient to attract criminal liability, the prosecution caseat this stage, does not rest on relationship alone. Certain allegations indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged transactions have been placed on record. Grant of anticipatory bail in a case of this magnitude, affecting public revenue and institutional integrity would seriously prejudice a free, fair, and full investigation, outweighing the individual concerns.

11. The Petitioner’s claim of prior cooperation does not take away the investigative necessity at this stage, particularly when several aspects of the financial trail and inter-se links between the accused remain to be unearthed. While the mere existence of a Look Out Circular may not, in isolation be determinative, the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused are relevant considerations. An accused, who remains beyond the reach of the investigating agency and seeks anticipatory bail while evading process cannot be permitted to enjoy the discretionary protection of the Court. Grant of prearrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal(supra). Therefore, the judgments relied on by the Petitioner do not help.

12. Having regard to the gravity and magnitude of the alleged economic offences, the prima facie material indicating the Petitioner’s role in the conspiracy, the nature of the investigation into complex financial transactions, and the demonstrated risk of abscondence, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

                  As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.