Common Order:

1. These Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.( For short ‗BNSS‘) have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.,1, 6, 34 and 38, seeking regular bail 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. As the different Accused in these Petitions relate to the same crime, for ease of understanding, they are disposed of by this common order. However, each individual petition is determined with reference to the respective petitioner.

Case of the Prosecution, in epitome, is as follows:

3. The present crime arises out of allegations concerning large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy and functioning of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) during 2019 to 2024. The matter came to light upon a representation made to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 26.08.2024 by one Venkateswara Rao Srinivas, alleging irregularities in the excise policy from 2019 to 2024. The report highlighted issues such as unfair discrimination in the allocation of Orders for Supply (OFS) of liquor, leading to the suppression of established brands and preferential treatment for new brands, in violation of existing norms. It also raised concerns about the shift from an automated to a manual OFS system, which could allow for manipulations. After an enquiry, Principal Secretary referred the complaint to CID Police, Mangalagiri, which registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2024 against unknown persons on 23.09.2024, alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18604. On 05.02.2025, the Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), vide G.O.Rt.No.262 to investigate the alleged irregularities in the excise policy and related crimes.

4. Petitioner/Accused No.1, who was functioning as the Information Technology Advisor to the then Hon‘ble Chief Minister, is alleged to be a key conspirator in the formulation and implementation of the new liquor policy. The investigation indicates that, in connivance with A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A31, A32, and A35, the Accused No.1 facilitated the discontinuation of established liquor brands and promoted select favoured brands, thereby securing illegal gratification for himself and the syndicate to the tune of approximately ₹3,200 crore. It is further alleged that the office premises of the Accused No.1 were used for holding meetings to plan and execute the said conspiracy.

5. It is alleged against Petitioner /Accused No.6, that being the Director of SPY Agro Industries Ltd., is a principal conspirator in the liquor syndicate scam. It is further alleged that, between 2019–2024, he actively planned and executed a kickback racket in the Andhra Pradesh liquor trade. It is alleged that in connivance with A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-31, A-32 and A-35, he is responsible for the elimination of popular brands and promotion of favoured brands, generating illegal kickbacks of approximately Rs. 3,200 Crores and that he routed illicit funds to Sanhoc Labs and Dcart Logistics Pvt. Ltd., companies controlled by A-9.

6. The role attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.34 is that, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other Accused in the present crime and by virtue of his close association with Accused No.38, facilitated the storage and concealment of cash proceeds derived from the commission of the said offence, which were intended to be utilized for unlawful distribution during the General Elections-2024 and for acquisition of various immovable properties.

7. It is alleged against the Petitioner / Accused No.38 that he, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with the other Accused, utilized his close associates to store cash proceeds generated from the commission of the present offence, which were intended to be utilized for distribution during the General Elections -2024 and for acquisition of various immovable properties. Arguments advanced at the Bar:

8. Heard Sri S. Nagamuthu and Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused No.1, Sri S. Nagesh Reddy and Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the Accused No.6, Sri Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the Accused No.34, Sri R.Basant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused No.38 and Sri Sidharth Luthra and Sri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor representing State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.1:

9. SriS. Nagamuthu and Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the prosecution case is wholly weak, speculative, and politically motivated. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the prosecution‘s case rests primarily on the statements of over 400 witnesses, many of whom are admitted participants in the alleged conspiracy. These statements are repetitive, interdependent, and self-serving, and have been prepared to suit the narrative of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the confessional statements of the co-accused, i.e., Accused Nos. 2 and 3, cannot be relied upon, as they were allegedly made under coercion.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Accused No. 1 further argued that the allegations regarding loss to the State exchequer are contrary to the record, as revenue from liquor substantially increased during the period 2019–2024. Claims of kickbacks, control over SPY Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Adan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., or manipulation of liquor policy are wholly unsubstantiated, with no documentary or financial evidence implicating the Accused No. 1. It is further submitted that the call detail records and cell tower data relied upon by the prosecution are inconclusive, as the Petitioner‘s phone was often switched off, and certain alleged entities were found to be non- existent. It is submitted that the role of the Accused No. 1 was limited to that of an IT Advisor to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, without any executive or decision-making powers over liquor policy. The alleged operational acts were carried out by subordinates, and advisory or supervisory involvement cannot constitute criminal responsibility.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation is procedurally irregular, following an ―arrest first, collect evidence later‖ approach. Despite a prolonged investigation, no direct evidence implicates Accused No. 1, and all relevant digital and financial material has already been seized. It is submitted that the prosecution is politically motivated, aimed at tarnishing the Petitioner‘s reputation, and constitutes a frivolous prosecution, which is a ground for the grant of bail. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the bail applications filed before the Special Court were dismissed, however, in view of the changed circumstances, including the progress of the investigation, absence of prima facie evidence, and disproportionate custodial detention, the Petitioner be granted regular bail. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement((2020) 13 SCC 791), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement((2024) 12 SCC 660), Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I and another((2022) 10 SCC 51), Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb((2021) 3 SCC 713) and this CourtinNara Chandra Babu Naidu vs. State of A.P.( 2023 SCC OnLine AP 4483)

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.6:

12. Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel representing the Accused No. 6, would submit that he was arrested on 24.05.2025, and that seven months have since elapsed. It is further submitted that the preliminary charge sheet has already been filed, the investigation is substantially complete, and there is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. As such, the continued detention of the Petitioner is unnecessary. Learned counsel would further submit that the FIR is vague and inconsistent. No specific role is attributed to the Accused No. 6, and the material on record does not link him to the alleged offences. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and subjected to malicious proceedings.

13. Learned counsel further argued that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Diary) No. 59102 of 2025, by order dated 16.10.2025, held that each bail petition must be considered on its own merits, and that any prior stay or interim orders cannot bar this Hon‘ble Court from independently hearing the Petitioner‘s bail petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner has strong local ties and is ready to furnish adequate sureties, and undertakes to comply with any conditions imposed. There is no risk of absconding or interfering with the investigation or trial.

14. Learned counsel also submitted that prolonged pre-trial detention beyond seven months violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that other co-accused in the same crime have already been granted bail and, as such, the Accused No. 6, who stands on the same footing, is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that granting bail will not hamper or impede the investigation or trial. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India and others((1999) 6 SCC 667), Delhi Race Club Ltd., and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others(MANU/SC/0934/2024), Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another((2024) 9 SCC 813), Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI((2012) 1 SCC 40), Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI((2015) 4 SCC 609), Santender Kumar (supra)and Manish Sisodia (supra).

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.34:

15. Sri Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel for the Accused No. 34, would submit that the Petitioner was taken into custody on 18.06.2025, and that the investigation against the Accused No. 34 has been completed. It is further submitted that as many as 414 witnesses have been cited and that the cross- examination of 51 accused is pending, which would take a considerable length of time. Therefore, compelling the Petitioner to undergo continued pre-trial incarceration is not tenable under law. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that two other accused, namely A4 and A30, who allegedly committed graver offences, have already been granted bail, and hence, denial of bail to the Accused No. 34 amounts to an abuse of process of law.

16. It is further submitted that the FIR is prima facie baseless, as the internal committee could not ascertain any motive and had recommended investigation by a specialized agency. It is also contended that the Accused No. 34 has fully cooperated with theinvestigation, and his detention pursuant to a Look Out Circular issued without notice reflects procedural irregularities.

17. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Accused No. 34 had no role in framing the excise policy, is not named in the committee report, and that no direct allegations exist against him. It is further submitted that the sole witness against the Petitioner, namely LW162, is unreliable. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that, in these circumstances, the continued detention of the Accused No. 34 appears to be harassment driven by political vendetta. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi (supra), Arshad Neyaz Kan v. State of Jharkhand and another((2025) SCC OnLine 2058) and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh.( (2025) SCC OnLine 1157)

Arguments advanced on behalf of Accused No.38:

18. Sri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the Accused No. 38, would submit that the Accused No.38 has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even as per the complaint, no specific overt acts are attributed to him, and he has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the allegations appear to be politically motivated. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the manner of arrest of the Accused No. 38 was itself irregular, with a Look Out Circular having been issued prior to any summons, and media reports falsely portraying him as attempting to flee. The primary evidence against the Accused No. 38, namely the statement of LW-162, is unreliable and was allegedly obtained under coercion, and LW-162 himself is an accused in a related case.

19. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the charges under Sections 409 and 34 of the IPC are legally unsustainable. At best, the Accused No. 38 is alleged to have facilitated cash transportation, which could only fall under Section 411 of the IPC. There is no evidence of any fiduciary breach or common intention. It is submitted that the investigation against the Accused No. 38 is complete, all relevant documents and properties have been disclosed, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that other co-accused facing identical or graver allegations have already been granted bail.

20. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Accused No. 38 is aged 52 years and is suffering from chronic back pain and developing comorbidities, which cannot be adequately treated in custody. Therefore, continued incarceration would not serve any purpose and would violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that the Accused No.38 undertakes to fully cooperate with the trial, appear on all dates, and not interfere with witnesses.

Arguments on behalf of Respondent/ State:

In relation to Accused No.1

21. Sri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel representing the State, would submit that Accused No. 1, formerly IT Advisor to the Chief Minister, is a key conspirator in a liquor trade syndicate in the State of Andhra Pradesh during the period 2019–2024, and is responsible for the discontinuation of popular liquor brands and promotion of favoured brands, while collecting kickbacks of approximately ₹3,200 crore. Several conspiratorial meetings are stated to have taken place at the Petitioner‘s office. It is further submitted that statements of independent witnesses demonstrate that Orders for Supply (OFS) were issued only to brands that paid kickbacks, and in cases of non- payment, the Accused No. 1 manipulated base prices to route excess revenue back to the syndicate.

22. Learned Senior Counsel for the State would further submit that Adan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (A-25), incorporated in 2020, was effectively controlled by the Accused No. 1 through Accused No. 7. The said company received ₹732 crore from APSBCL, which was later diverted to Phoenix Real Estate Ventures and shell companies, namely Olwick and Nysna, which were found to be non- existent at their verified addresses. It is argued that the financial investigation reveals kickbacks amounting to ₹135 crores, transferred through shell companies, gold merchants, and properties, supported by fabricated e-way bills. Call Detail Records, FSL reports, and WhatsApp conversations confirm the Petitioner‘s active nexus with the co-accused.

23. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Accused No. 1 has previously attempted to evade investigation by travelling abroad and, therefore, continued custodial detention is necessary to prevent interference with the investigation and possible witness intimidation. It is also submitted that the Special Court at Vijayawada has twice rejected the bail applications of the Accused No. 1 even after filing of the charge sheet, highlighting the strength of the prima facie evidence and the seriousness of the allegations. The allegations are supported by independent witnesses, documentary evidence, and forensic analysis, thereby establishing a strong prima facie case against the Accused No. 1. It is submitted that the plea of political vendetta cannot override the strength of the evidence on record.

24. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that, in view of the magnitude of the economic offence, the influential position of the Accused No. 1, the risk of absconding, and the ongoing investigation, no exceptional circumstances exist to justify grant of bail at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition concerning Accused No.1.

In relation to Accused No.6

25. With regard to the Accused No. 6, learned Senior Counsel for the State would submit that the Accused No. 6, is a key conspirator in this large-scale organized economic offence involving kickbacks amounting to ₹3,200 crores approximately, in the liquor trade in the State during the period 2019–2024. It is further submitted that the investigation reveals that the Accused No. 6, in close association with multiple co-accused, not only participated in but actively organized the conspiracy, including the discontinuation of popular liquor brands and promotion of favoured brands for the benefit of the syndicate and himself. The role of the Accused No. 6 is stated to be vital in executing the criminal plan, organizing meetings with distillery owners, and directing the payment and collection of kickbacks.

26. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the evidence on record, including statements of independent witnesses, Call Detail Records, forensic examination reports of digital devices, and WhatsApp conversations, establishes the direct nexus of the Accused No. 6 with the other accused and his active participation in the commission of the offences. The forensic evidence clearly indicates that the Accused No. 6 was involved in organizing fund transfers to shell companies, such as Sanhoc Labs and Dcart Logistics Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of laundering illicit funds and concealing their origin, thereby demonstrating a deliberate and systematic effort to perpetrate the crime. The financial trail, corroborated by banking records and testimonies of multiple witnesses, forms a strong prima facie case against the Accused No. 6.

27. It is further submitted that, considering the nature, seriousness, and magnitude of the offence, custodial detention is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence and to ensure the integrity of the investigation. In that view, release of the Accused No. 6 on bail at this stage would severely prejudice the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In relation to Accused No.34

28. In relation to the Accused No. 34, learned Senior Counsel representing the State would submit that the Accused No. 34 was arrested on 18.06.2025 at Bengaluru International Airport while allegedly attempting to flee the country, which clearly indicates that he is a flight risk. It is further submitted that the Accused No. 34 has not cooperated with the investigation, and there is every reason to believe that, if released on bail, he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

29. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Accused No. 34 is alleged to have played a direct and active role in the diversion and misappropriation of public funds, conspiring with co-accused and receiving and distributing illicit pecuniary benefits during the 2024 General Elections. He has been specifically identified in the statements of witnesses LW-162 and LW-167, including his involvement in international financial transactions aimed at laundering the proceeds of crime through investments in Africa.

30. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, considering the gravity of the economic offences involved, the risk of flight, and the likelihood of obstruction of the investigation, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

In relation to Accused No.38

31. In so far as the Accused No. 38 is concerned, learned Senior Counsel for the State would submit that the investigation has revealed a well- organized and large-scale economic offence involving the Accused No. 38 and multiple associates, with cash transfers running into several crores across multiple constituencies over a period of months. It is further submitted that the evidence indicates that the Accused No. 38, along with close aides and family members, not only directed the movement and distribution of illicit funds but also utilized various companies to launder and invest the proceeds of crime, thereby establishing a clear financial trail.

32. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, in view of the magnitude of the alleged offences, coupled with the involvement of numerous accomplices and substantial sums of cash, there exists a high likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if bail is granted. It is also submitted that the Accused No. 38 failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting grant of bail in economic offences of this magnitude. It is further submitted that custodial detention is necessary to ensure proper completion of the investigation and to safeguard public interest. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

33. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for State placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Netsity Systems (P) Ltd., v. State (NCT of Delhi)( 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079), State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh(2025 SCC OnLine SC 518), Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher((2024) 10 SCC 753), Centrum Financial Services Ltd., v. State (NCT of Delhi)( (2022) 13 SCC 286), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar((2017) 13 SCC 751), Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI((2013) 7 SCC 439), Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI((2013) 7 SCC 466), Munnesh v. State of U.P(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319), NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali((2019) 5 SCC 1), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan((2004) 7 SCC 528), State of Tamil Nadu v. S.A.Raja((2005) 8 SCC 380), Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1697), Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar((2020) 20 SCC 531), Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI((2001) 7 SCC 536) and this Court in S.Chandra Sekhar v. SDPO(2022 SCC OnLine AP 1465), Sanjay P.Jain v. State(2024 SC OnLine AP 2295) andHigh Court of Delhi inKapil Wadhawan v. CBI(2025 SCC OnLine Del 5174).

Point for Determination

34. Having heard the arguments on both the sides, this Court has perused the material available on record in these Petitions. The following point arises for determination;

Whether the respective Petitioners are entitled for the grant of regular bail?

Determination by the Court

35. Before delving into the question of grant of bail in each of the Petitions, it is beneficial to state the settled principles of law governing bail jurisprudence.

36. Consideration for grant of bail is not in a strait jacket formula and it will have to be determined on case-to-case basis on the facts involved. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram(supra) discussed the factors to be considered in dealing with a bail application as follows;

                  “21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:

                  (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

                  (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

                  (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

                  (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

                  (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.

                  [Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] .]

                  ***

                  23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] , it was held as under: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)

                  ―11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

                  (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

                  (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

                  (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598] and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338.)‖

                  24. Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of bail, in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 481] , it was held as under: (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16)

                  ―16. … The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 215] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] and basically they are — the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.‖

                  25. After referring to para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528], in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , it was held as under: (Amarmani Tripathi case [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21] , SCC p. 31, para 18)

                  ―18. It is well-settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

                  (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.‖

                  (emphasis supplied)

37. It is also settled principle that economic offences constitute as a class apart in the context of considering bail applications, as has been noted by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari((2019) 9 SCC 165), Nimmagadda Prasad(supra) andState of Bihar v. Amit Kumar (supra). Such cases involve deep-rooted conspiracies and massive siphoning of public funds, which pose a direct threat to the national financial health and the moral fabric of society, warranting a cautious approach to bail, particularly those alleged to be the ―kingpin‖ with the utmost seriousness. Explaining this, a three Judge Bench of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,( (2020) 13 SCC 791)held as follows;

                  “23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied.In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.‖

                  (emphasis supplied)

38. Viewed together, from the precedents discussed above, in the context of economic offences, while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment that a conviction may entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at trial, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State, and other similar considerations.

39. In a catena of decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court viz., Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote,( (1980) 2 SCC 559)at para 3; Ajwar v. Waseem at para 17,( 2025 INSC 968)it was cautioned that at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided.Thus, though a prima facie case satisfaction is necessary, an exhaustive exploration of the merits should be avoided.

40. It is also settled in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) at para 20, that while an accused possesses the right to file successive bail applications, the Court has a mandatory duty to consider the reasons for previous rejections and record fresh grounds for a new decision. Any bail order that lacks such reasoning or fails to consider the gravity of the offence suffers from a non-application of mind. Further, in S. Chandra Sekhar (supra) at paras 12 and 16 and S.A. Raja(supra)at para 9, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that for a successive bail application to be maintainable, there must be a substantial change in circumstances rather than mere cosmetic updates.

41. It is also well settled that parity is not an absolute claim for grant of bail and it applies only when the roles of the individuals are similar in nature. Recently, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh& Another,( 2025 INSC 1370) held that in the context of bail applications, parity is focused on the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being the only common factor between the accused persons. It was explained that when weighing an application on parity, it is ―position‖that is important and that this requirement of ―position‖ is not satisfied solely by involvement in the same offence; rather, it refers to the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, including the nature and extent of his involvement.

42. In Manish Sisodia (supra), the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that Article 21 serves as a constitutional safety valve that can override even the most stringent statutory bars to bail. It was held that 17 months of pre- trial incarceration without the trial commencing constitutes a violation of the right to liberty. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court also emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention must not be utilized as a tool for punishment, as punishment should only follow a formal conviction. Additionally, in K.A. Najeeb(supra),it was held that gross delay in trial disposal justifies the invocation of Article 21, even in matters governed by laws with restrictive bail provisions. This position of law has also been recently reiterated by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Arvind Dham v Directorate of Enforcement.( 2026 INSC 12)

43. Keeping in mind, the above settled principles of law referred supra, the individual petitions will now be determined.

Criminal Petition No.11425 of 2025 by Accused No.1.:

44. It is an admitted fact that the Accused No.1 was the I.T. Advisor to the then Chief Minister. The material on record prima facie discloses that, in the alleged conspiracy with the co-accused, several meetings were held at the office premises of the Accused No.1. Witnesses L.Ws. 8, 21, 40, 105, and 108, employees of the distilleries, have stated that Orders for Supply (OFS) were given only to those brands who allegedly paid kickbacks to the Accused No.1 and the syndicate.

45. The material further discloses that Adan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (Accused No.25) was incorporated in the year 2020, soon after the new liquor policy came into force, and was effectively controlled by the Accused No.1 through Accused No.7. It is alleged that they received nearly ₹750 crores from APSBCL and directed the amount to shell companies, namely Accused Nos.11 and 13, which were not in existence. Out of this, an amount of ₹135 crores is alleged to have been transferred through the said shell companies. The Call Data Records, FSL reports, and WhatsApp communications prima facie disclose active involvement of the Accused No.1 in the alleged transactions.

46. It is also noted that the Accused No.1 has, at an earlier stage, attempted to evade investigation by going abroad. The allegations are supported by independent witnesses, documentary evidence, and forensic analysis, establishing a prima facie case against the Accused No.1.

47. In the view of this Court, it is also a relevant circumstance that Accused No.1 is closely related to Accused No.7, who is presently absconding. The material on record prima facie discloses that Accused No.7 acted as a conduit for the activities of Accused No.1, including control over Adan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (Accused No.25) and the diversion of funds to shell entities. The subsisting abscondence of Accused No.7, coupled with the close relationship between the two, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that if Accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, he may either facilitate the evasion of Accused No.7 from the process of law or impede efforts to secure his presence. Such a possibility directly impacts the administration of justice and weighs heavily against the grant of bail at this stage.

48. Keeping in view, the magnitude of the alleged economic offence, involving large-scale diversion of public funds, warrants a stricter approach while considering bail, especially in relation to those who are shown to play an active role. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Criminal Petition No.11425 of 2025 lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Petition No.12165 of 2025/Accused No.6

49. The offences alleged against Accused No.6 are undoubtedly serious economic offences, which, as repeatedly held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, warrant a cautious approach at the stage of considering bail. Accused No.6 has been in judicial custody since 24.05.2025, and more than seven months have elapsed. It is also not in dispute that the preliminary charge-sheet has been filed and that the investigation, including forensic examination of digital devices and collection of documentary material, is substantially complete insofar as Accused No.6 is concerned.

50. The prosecution contends that Accused No.6 played a key and active role in the alleged conspiracy, relying upon Call Detail Records, banking transactions, WhatsApp communications, and witness statements. However, at the stage of bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed analysis of the probative value of such material. What is required is a prima facie assessment, balanced against the necessity of continued custodial detention. The FIR and the preliminary material, though raising suspicion, do not, at this stage, disclose such unequivocal or dominant involvement of Accused No.6 that would justify prolonged incarceration, particularly when no further custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary.

51. The apprehension expressed by the State regarding possible tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is noted. However, the prosecution has not placed any specific material to indicate that Accused No.6 has attempted, during custody or otherwise, to interfere with the investigation. The investigation against him being substantially complete, the likelihood of prejudice to the prosecution case can be adequately mitigated by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions. Further, it is relevant to note that other co-accused, who are similarly placed in terms of the nature of allegations, have already been enlarged on bail. Though the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically as has been noted earlier, no material distinction has been demonstrated to justify a differential treatment resulting in continued detention of Accused No.6 alone.

52. As also discussed, prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly where the report is filed, investigation is substantially complete, cognizance of offences is not yet taken, and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, may infringe the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the period of custody undergone by Accused No.6, the stage of the proceedings, the absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with the trial, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of Accused No.6 is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. Consequently, Criminal Petition No. 12165 of 2025 is allowed.

Criminal Petition No.13101 of 2025/Accused No.34

53. It is not in dispute that Accused No.34 has been in judicial custody since 18.06.2025. It is also an admitted position that the investigation, insofar as Accused No.34 is concerned, has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The prosecution proposes to examine as many as 414 witnesses and the number of accused is also substantial. Having regard to the volume of evidence, multiplicity of accused, and the stage of proceedings, it is evident that the trial is not likely to reach its conclusion in the near future.

54. The allegation against Accused No.34 is that he entered into a criminal conspiracy and facilitated the storage and concealment of alleged cash proceeds through his association with Accused No.38. However, at this stage, the material placed on record discloses that the role attributed to Accused No.34 is largely based on inferential circumstances drawn from witness statements, particularly LWs.162 and 167, Whatsapp messages, FSL reports, electronic evidence, and alleged financial linkages. No direct recovery of cash, has been made from Accused No.34, nor is there material to prima facie indicate that he exercised any controlling or supervisory role over the alleged conspiracy. While these aspects are matters for trial, they assume relevance while assessing the necessity of continued custodial detention.

55. The prosecution‘s case against the Petitioner rests primarily on the statements of LW-162 (and LW-167), whose reliability is a matter for trial and cannot, at this stage, justify continued incarceration. Similarly placed co- accused, namely Accused Nos.4 and 30, against whom graver allegations are made, have already been granted bail, denial of bail to the Petitioner would violate the principle of parity.

56. It is true that the allegations pertain to economic offences, which, as held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, constitute a distinct class requiring a cautious approach while considering bail. However, the settled position of law also mandates that pre-trial incarceration cannot be permitted to assume a punitive character. In the present case, the prosecution‘s apprehension regarding flight risk and possible tampering with evidence is based on the reason of the arrest of Accused No.34 at Bengaluru International Airport. While such apprehension cannot be brushed aside, it is not shown that Accused No.34 has, subsequent to his arrest, attempted to interfere with the investigation or influence witnesses. In the considered view of this Court, such concerns can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

57. This Court also takes note of the fact that co-accused, who are similarly placed in terms of the nature of allegations, have already been enlarged on bail and the Petitions filed by the State challenging the same are pending. Though the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically, it remains a relevant consideration, particularly where the role attributed to the applicant does not stand on a materially higher footing.

58. In view of the lengthy custody, completion of investigation, parity with co-accused, and the likelihood of a protracted trial, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of Accused No.34 is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.13101 of 2025 is liable to be allowed.

Criminal Petition No.12960 of 2025/Accused No.38

59. Insofar as Accused No.38 is concerned, the prosecution relies primarily upon the statement of LW-162, who himself is an Accused in a related case coupled with alleged financial transactions and linkages. The argument regarding the evidentiary value and reliability of such material, including the extent to which it establishes entrustment, fiduciary capacity, or common intention so as to attract Sections 409 and 34 IPC, are matters that require detailed examination during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail. It is also not in dispute that the investigation, insofar as Accused No.38 is concerned, is substantially complete and that the prosecution has already secured relevant documents and disclosed properties. No further custodial interrogation of Accused No.38 is shown to be necessary.

60. While the allegations pertain to serious economic offences involving movement of funds, the State has not placed any specific material to demonstrate that Accused No.38, if enlarged on bail, is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The apprehension expressed in this regard remains general in nature. Further, this Court cannot ignore the fact that other co-accused, against whom similar or even graver allegations have been levelled, have already been enlarged on bail. Though the principle of parity is not absolute and must be applied with caution, in absence of distinguishing circumstances indicating a dominant or controlling role attributable to Accused No.38, parity remains a relevant consideration.

61. This Court has also taken into consideration the age and medical condition of Accused No.38. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to Accused No.38, the stage of the proceedings, and the absence of compelling circumstances warranting further custodial detention, this Court is of the considered view that Accused No.38 has made out a case for grant of bail and that Criminal Petition No.12960 of 2025 is liable to be allowed.

62. Having regard to the magnitude of the alleged economic offence, the depth of the conspiracy, the influential position held by Accused No.1, the fact that Accused No.1 is closely related to Accused No.7, who is absconding and the ongoing nature of the investigation, and it is further alleged that Accused No.1 through Accused No.7 controlled the shell companies and diverted the funds received through kick-backs, this Court is of the considered view that the parameters governing grant of bail are not satisfied. The case of Accused No.1 is therefore clearly distinguishable from that of other accused who have been granted bail, and no ground is made out for exercise of discretion in his favour at this stage. The view expressed by this Court is in the light of the contents shown in the following table;