Justice P Bhaskara Rao observed that the accused were “bargaining with the court” and hinted at a possible understanding between them and the investigating agency.
Published Aug 21, 2025 | 5:29 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 21, 2025 | 5:29 PM
Judgement. Representative Image. (iStock)
Synopsis: A special court in Andhra Pradesh has dismissed anticipatory bail pleas filed by two of the prime accused in the alleged ₹3,200 crore liquor scam, while making caustic observations against the Special Investigation Team probing the case. Justice P Bhaskara Rao observed that the accused were “bargaining with the court” and hinted at a possible understanding between them and the investigating agency, noting that an approver cannot be granted anticipatory bail under the law.
A special court in Andhra Pradesh has made caustic observations against the Special Investigative Team (SIT) probing the ₹3,200 crore liquor scam alleged to have taken place during the previous Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) government between 2019 and 2024, while dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed by two of the prime accused in the case.
The observations, which included serious remarks suggesting a possible collusion between state agencies and the accused, were part of detailed orders passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases in Vijayawada.
The petitions were filed by:
Their contention was that they had cooperated fully with the investigating agency and had initiated proceedings to turn approvers. They argued that arrest at this stage would defeat their approver status.
The probe, initiated after an enquiry by the APSBC following the Telugu Desam Party’s return to power in June 2024, revealed a “large-scale criminal conspiracy, systematic corruption, and irregularities in the procurement, supply, and distribution of liquor between October 2019 and March 2024, causing a wrongful loss of ₹3,200 crore to the exchequer and unlawful gains to private parties and politically favoured distilleries.”
Thus far, the SIT has filed two chargesheets naming 10 people and nine companies. Among those arrested in the scandal are retired IAS officer K Dhanunjay Reddy, who served as secretary to then Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, and P Krishna Mohan Reddy, who worked as former Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s Officer on Special Duty (OSD).
Though both Vasudeva Reddy and Venkata Satya Prasad appeared before the SIT multiple times and their statements were recorded, they were not arrested.
Interestingly, the SIT has not opposed anticipatory bail for either of the prime accused. It only sought certain conditions to be imposed in the event of the court being inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
The conditions sought included “cooperation with investigating officer, no travel outside India and no communication with other accused.”
The court primarily examined “whether the petitioners are entitled to an anticipatory bail on the ground that they are willing to become approvers.”
Justice P Bhaskara Rao, who presided over the proceedings, pointed out that the role of the petitioners in the scam is “pivotal and central” and therefore, the prosecution is not expected to take the principal or prime accused as approvers, especially in such economic offences where a lot of documentary and scientific evidence is available to unravel the truth.
Furthermore, after hearing the special public prosecutor on behalf of the state, the judge said that there was no bona fide intention on the part of the petitioners to become approvers unless they were granted anticipatory bail.
“They are clearly bargaining with the court which amounts to undermining judicial dignity. Their approach also clearly reflects there was a bargain struck between the investigating agency and the petitioners,” the judge noted.
The judge commented that such an approach was a clear violation of the mandate of law. As per Section 306 (4) (b) of the CrPC, an approver cannot be granted anticipatory bail and, if arrested, cannot be released on bail until termination of the trial.
What is notable is that the developments in the special court and critical comments made by the judge came in the wake of allegations that those holding high positions in the government’s legal system were themselves trying to adopt a lenient approach towards the accused in the liquor scam.
In a widely circulated message, the authenticity of which was confirmed, Andhra Pradesh High Court advocate and active member of the Telugu Desam Legal Cell, VV Lakshminarayana, alleged that the office of the Advocate General was bringing pressure on public prosecutors not to oppose bail or anticipatory bail for the liquor scam accused.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
