Common Order:

1. The instant Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(For short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 respectively, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 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’).

Case of the Prosecution precisely, is as follows:

2. 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 IPC. 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.

Arguments advanced at the Bar:

3. Heard Sri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.1, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Shagufta Jahan Noor, learned counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.51, and Sri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor for State.

On behalf of the Petitioner / Accused No.1:

4. Sri Siddharth Dave, Learned Senior Counnsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.1 would submit that this is the second bail application filed before this Court by the Petitioner seeking regular bail. The first application in Crl.P.No.11425 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide Common Order dated 29.01.2026 mainly on the ground that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he may either facilitate the evasion of Accused No.7 in the present crime, who is his co-brother from the process of law or impede the efforts of the investigating agency to secure his presence. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to be withdrawn with a liberty to renew the plea for regular bail at an appropriate stage.

                  Learned Senior Counsel would contend that, Accused No.7, who is the basis for denial of bail to the Petitioner herein, has surrendered before the Investigating Agency on 26.02.2026 in order to cooperate with the investigation and has been sent for judicial remand on the same day. Subsequently, he was granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.03.2026. As such, the basis for the denial of bail to the Petitioner by this Court stands removed and there are no legal or factual fetters to grant bail to the Petitioner, in view of the above substantive change in circumstances.

                  Learned Senior Counsel argues that, so far, 15 Accused were arrested out of which, 13 Accused were already granted bail. It is submitted that the investigation in so far as the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned, has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed, however, cognizance of the offences has not been taken. It is contended that, prolonged pre-trial incarceration without the trial commencing constitutes a violation of the right to liberty. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the Petitioner / Accused No1.

On behalf of Accused No.51:

5. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.51 would submit that the Petitioner is no way connected with the present crime and the allegations levelled against him are baseless. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, as far as the transactions with regard to the bullion entities are concerned, they were carried out in the normal course of his business. It is further submitted that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner / Accused No.51. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the investigation in the present case is completed and charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, further detention of the Petitioner / Accused No.51 would be punitive in nature and amount to pre- trial punishment. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.51. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikati Narasimhulu and others vs. P.P.High Court of AP((1978) 1 SCC 240), Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI((2012) 1 SCC 40), Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693), Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920), Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement(AIR 2024 SC 4286), Santendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another((2022) 10 SCC 51), Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another((2022) 8 SCC 559).

On behalf of Respondent / State:

6. Per contra, Sri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of State, would submit that, so far as Petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned, there are no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of his earlier bail application. However, it is conceded about the grant of bail to Accused No.7 in the present crime, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

                  So far as Petitioner / Accused No.51 is concerned, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the investigation so far done established the active involvement of Petitioner / Accused No.51 in the alleged offences and he received substantial amounts from the shell entitled operated by Accused No.49 into their bullion concerns, indicating conversion of layered funds into bullion and facilitation of cash delivery as part of the proceeds of crime distribution network. There are no grounds to grant bail to Petitioner / Accused No.51 at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

7. Having heard the rival submissions on sides, this Court has perused the material available on record. Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 51 are entitled for the grant of regular bail?

Determination by the Court

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement((2024) 12 SCC 660), categorically held that Article 21 serves as a constitutional safety valve that can override even the most stringent statutory bars to bail. It was also emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention must not be utilized as a tool for punishment, as punishment should only follow a formal conviction. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb((2021) 3 SCC 713), the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that gross delay in trial disposal justifies the invocation of Article 21, even in matters governed by laws with restrictive bail provisions.

                  While reiteration this position of law the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Dham v Directorate of Enforcement(2026 INSC 12) held as follows:

                  “18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class war- ranting a blanket denial of bail.”

9. In the case on hand, admittedly, Petitioner / Accused No.1 was arrested on 21.04.2025 in connection with the present crime. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner / Accused No.1 has joined the investigation. The investigation insofar as the Petitioner / Accused No.1 has also been completed and he has been in judicial custody from the past nearly about one year. Further, no cognizance has been taken and there is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. It is also not in dispute that, the earlier application of Petitioner / Accused No.1 for regular bail was rejected primarily on the ground that his release on bail may facilitate the evasion of Accused No.7 and impede the investigation. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that Accused No.7 has, since, surrendered before the Investigating Agency on 26.02.2026, was remanded to judicial custody, and has subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the very basis on which the earlier bail application of the Petitioner / Accused No.1 was rejected, no longer survives. This constitutes a substantial change in circumstances warranting fresh consideration of the present application.

10. It is further evident that out of the total Accused, a majority have already been granted bail. The investigation, insofar as the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned, has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the Petitioner / Accused No.1, particularly when cognizance is yet to be taken and trial is not likely to commence immediately, would amount to pre-trial detention of an indefinite nature. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that detention pending trial should not be punitive. In that view, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is entitled to regular bail.

11. Insofar as the Petitioner / Accused No.51 is concerned, though the prosecution has alleged that the Petitioner received funds from entities linked to Accused No.49 and converted the same into bullion, at this stage, what is required to be examined is whether the continued detention of the Petitioner / Accused No.51 is necessary. A careful perusal of the material does not prima facie discloses that the transactions, as contended by the Petitioner, appear to be part of regular business dealings, which would require detailed examination during trial. The contention of the prosecution is that he has actively participated in the alleged offences and facilitated transactions involving proceeds of crime. However, it is not disputed that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. The allegations, though serious, are matters to be established during trial. At this stage, continued detention of the Petitioner / Accused No.51 would not serve any further investigational purpose. In the absence of any specific material indicating that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, his continued incarceration would also amount to pre-trial punishment.

12. This Court considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, wherein it has been consistently held that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and that prolonged pre-trial detention ought to be avoided when the investigation is complete.

13. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the completion of investigation, and the change in circumstances insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that both the Petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

                  (i) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                  (ii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall surrender their passports, if any, before the trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of the said Court.

                  (iii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any.

                  (iv) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

                  (v) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.

                  (vi) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall file their affidavits before the trial Court disclosing all their movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, demat accounts, business interests, and financial holdings, whether held individually or jointly within a period of two weeks from the date of his release.

                  (vii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not make or publish or disseminate any information, statement, or post whether in print, electronic or social media concerning the present crime till conclusion of the trial.

                  (viii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not alienate, encumber, or create third-party interests in any property disclosed by them or identified by the prosecution, without prior permission of the trial Court.

                  (ix) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not operate or manage any company, firm, or bank account alleged to have been used in connection with the offence, except with prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.

                  (x) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall furnish their active mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all times and any change shall be intimated forthwith.

                  (xi) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall appear before the Investigating Agency twice in a month i.e., on 2nd and 4th Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

                  In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

                  It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail applications and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

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