In a significant ruling on May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that custodial interrogation is not presently sought by the investigating agency is not a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made this observation while dismissing anticipatory bail petitions filed by former Andhra Pradesh government officials accused in a ₹3,200 crore liquor syndicate scam.
The petitions arose from a case registered by the CID, Andhra Pradesh, under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had previously denied the petitioners’ pleas for anticipatory bail.
Background of the Case
The case originated from allegations concerning irregularities in the procurement and allocation of liquor brands by the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL). According to the FIR, the accused officials allegedly favoured certain new liquor brands such as “Adan” and “Leela” while sidelining well-established brands like “McDowell’s” and “Budweiser,” thereby manipulating market dynamics to the benefit of select entities. The Internal Committee report and the APSBCL Managing Director recommended the matter be handed over to the CID due to suspected manipulation and unfair practices.
Crime No. 21 of 2024 was subsequently registered at the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, under Sections 409, 420, 120B read with Sections 34 and 37 of the IPC (now Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) & 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Arguments by the Petitioners
Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Vikas Singh, representing the petitioners, contended that the prosecution was politically motivated and that the accused had fully cooperated with the investigation. They argued that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners and that anticipatory bail should be granted, especially in the absence of any custodial interrogation request by the investigating agency.
It was also submitted that the petitioners were retired public servants with no incentive to obstruct the investigation. Reference was made to alleged third-degree methods being employed during interrogation, which had even prompted a writ petition in the High Court allowing the presence of legal counsel during questioning.
Arguments by the State
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh. They strongly opposed the bail applications, asserting that a prima facie case had been established. They highlighted the scale of the financial irregularities—misappropriation of public funds exceeding ₹3,000 crore—and emphasized the need for custodial interrogation if warranted by emerging evidence.
The State expressed apprehension that pre-arrest bail would severely impede the ongoing investigation and the potential unearthing of a broader conspiracy.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s view that a strong prima facie case existed and that custodial interrogation might become necessary at a later stage. It reiterated 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.”
The Court emphasized that even in cases where custodial interrogation is not immediately sought, the courts must assess the overall nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the offence, and the requirement of a free and effective investigation.
The Bench noted:
“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438.”
“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.”
On Political Vendetta Allegations
While the Court acknowledged that a prima facie case of political bias or vendetta could be argued, it categorically held that:
“Political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail.”
It added that only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, may it consider political bias as a deciding factor.
Custodial Statements and Evidence Admissibility
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clarifying that confessional statements of co-accused recorded by police cannot be relied upon at the stage of anticipatory bail unless duly proved during trial and subject to admissibility tests. The Bench rejected the High Court’s approach of relying on such statements at the bail stage.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the investigation proceed unhindered and cautioned the CID against using third-degree methods or coercive tactics. It further stated that any future complaints regarding improper investigative conduct would be taken seriously by all levels of the judiciary.
Additionally, the Court clarified that if the petitioners are arrested and later apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered independently on its merits.
