The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to Member of Parliament P. V. Midhun Reddy in the alleged liquor scam case after noting that he had not been named as an accused and hence was not entitled to the relief sought.

The Rajampet MP filed the Criminal Petition by invoking the provision of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao said, “In light of the observations above and as noted in Gurubaksh Singh's case, the power under Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked based on vague and general allegations, as doing so would lead to a surge in anticipatory bail applications. As no specific accusations have been made against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been named as an accused, he is not entitled to the anticipatory bail sought.”

Advocate Kalla Guna Sekhar represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A report was received from the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, where the complainant had outlined concerns regarding irregularities and corruption in Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) from October 2019 to March 2024. The report referenced multiple communications, including the Government Memo and a letter from the MD, APSBCL. A representation was also made alleging irregularities in the Corporation Limited between October 2019 and March 2024. This was forwarded to the MD, APSBCL, for investigation, and a detailed report was provided per the second reference. The Report mentioned suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential allocation, and other violations. The petitioner and his father are prominent leaders in the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP). A criminal case was filed against the current Chief Minister and others in the previous regime based on similar allegations.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that the current government is intent on fabricating criminal cases against YSRCP leaders, including the petitioner, and laying the groundwork for his arrest while ensuring that no material is placed before the court. It was submitted that the Special Officer’s statement recorded by the C.I.D., under section 164 of Cr.P.C., was vague and unreliable.

The Respondent, on the contrary, argued that merely because the police recorded statements from some witnesses and some stray sentences were made against the petitioner, it couldn’t be concluded that the petitioner made out a case for anticipatory bail.

Reasoning

The Bench observed that while the investigation agency claims to be investigating an allegedly major liquor scam involving thousands of crores of rupees, keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns. “It isn't easy to reconcile how such sensitive particulars of information could be made public at this initial stage of the investigation. The premature disclosure could significantly hinder the progress of the investigation, as it may alert those involved in the scam, allowing them to cover their tracks or alter their actions in response to the information”, the Bench said.

Considering that the petitioner relied on news reports which were not placed before the court, the Bench reiterated that news reports allegedly published cannot be considered at this stage to grant anticipatory bail.

The Single Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao held, “This court views that if the particulars of the investigation, those revealed during the early stages, are not adequately substantiated or are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, it could severely damage the reputations of the individuals who have been named, and they may be portrayed as being involved in the scam, even though the investigation is still in its preliminary phase, and no conclusive material has been established against them. This court views that the Investigating Officer, tasked with investigating matters involving public funds, should ensure that investigation details are not disclosed unless necessary for the investigation or for the public interest at large or in society.”

It was noticed by the Bench that no accusations had been made against the petitioner at this stage and an investigation is underway in the case based on the allegation that the exchequer had suffered a loss of several thousand crores of rupees.

"This court views that the petition is not maintainable as the investigation is still at a nascent stage, the investigation officer has yet to verify the credibility of the information, and there is no apprehension of arrest at present”, the Bench said while dismissing the Criminal Petition. “However, it is clarified that the petitioner is entitled to pursue legal remedies available to him should he be aggrieved by any action taken against him by the Respondent-State”, it concluded.

Cause Title: P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No.: 2904/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Kalla Guna Sekhar

Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice T Mallikarjuna Rao

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.