Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty

"Appellant Was Not Initially Named In FIR — No Raid Was Ever Conducted At His Place Of Business", In a significant ruling that draws a firm line between genuine accused and persons roped into criminal cases on the strength of custodial interrogation statements alone, the Supreme Court of India on March 10, 2026 granted anticipatory bail to a Vijayawada businessman accused of supplying plastic bottles and caps for manufacturing spurious liquor, holding that his arrest and repeated remand across three successive FIRs — each time followed by bail — raised serious questions about the prosecution's conduct.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail and made absolute the interim protection already granted by the Supreme Court on January 6, 2026.

Background of the Case

On October 6, 2025, Excise officials raided the shop of accused No.2, Addepalli Jagan Mohana Rao at Ravi Khirana General Stores in Ibrahimpatnam Town and a nearby godown, seizing 7,800 bottles of spurious liquor, 3,325 litres of spurious liquor blend and bottling machinery. A simultaneous raid at A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar uncovered a full-fledged manufacturing operation — a water plant and spirit blending tanks where the accused had been blending spirit with water, caramel and essences to produce counterfeit versions of popular brands including Old Admiral Brandy and Kerala Malt Whiskey. During the custodial interrogation of accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of the appellant surfaced as the supplier of plastic bottles and caps. The appellant, Manoj Kumar Mutta, runs a legitimate plastic and aluminium bottle cap business called Sha Misrimal Hirachand Empty Glass Bottles Wholesale at Vijayawada, registered under the AP Shops and Establishments Act.

The prosecution added him as accused No.20 through a memo dated October 30, 2025 — initially naming him as "Manoj Kotaria" — and then filed a fresh memo on November 11, 2025 changing the name to "Mutta Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kotaria." The investigation further revealed 400 phone calls between the appellant and accused No.23 who allegedly coordinated the supply of fake bottles and caps, as well as financial transactions between the appellant and accused No.2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati refused anticipatory bail, accepting the State's argument that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover a larger conspiracy and money trail.

Legal Issues

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant — a businessman not named in the original FIR, against whose establishment no raid was ever conducted, who was added as an accused solely on the basis of custodial interrogation statements of co-accused, and who had already cooperated with the Investigating Officer during the Supreme Court's interim protection — was entitled to anticipatory bail, or whether the need to uncover a larger conspiracy justified his custodial interrogation.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court's scrutiny began with what was absent rather than what was present. The raids of October 6, 2025 — the foundational event of the entire case — were conducted at Ravi Khirana General Stores and A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar. Neither of these establishments belongs to the appellant. Not a single Excise official stepped into the appellant's registered business premises at Vijayawada on the date the spurious liquor operation was busted. The Supreme Court found this to be a telling circumstance. "The appellant was not initially named in the FIR and no raid was ever conducted at his place of business," the Court held, making this twin finding the cornerstone of its reasoning.

The Court then turned to the pattern of prosecution against the appellant — a pattern that it found deeply troubling. This was not the first time the appellant had been dragged into a spurious liquor case. He had been arraigned as accused in two earlier criminal cases — Crime Nos.69 of 2025 and 115 of 2025 — registered in quick succession, each carrying the same set of allegations and each unsupported by any material. In each of those cases, the appellant was arrested, remanded to custody, and ultimately released on bail by the courts. Now, in Crime No.171 of 2025, the same story was unfolding a third time. The Court considered this pattern of successive prosecution while assessing whether custodial interrogation was truly indispensable.

The Court also dealt with the identity confusion that ran through the prosecution's own case. The appellant was first added to the FIR as "Manoj Kotaria" and subsequently renamed "Mutta Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kotaria" through a fresh memo. The investigation's witnesses referred to him variously as Manoj Kothariya, Manoj Kumar, and as the owner of "Mishramal Heerachand Plastic Dealers" — a name that does not precisely match the registered name of his actual establishment. This confusion, the Court noted, further weakened the prosecution's case for insisting on custodial interrogation as indispensable.

Against the State's argument — pressed by the Additional Solicitor General — that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy and trace the money trail of the spurious liquor network, the Court pointed to a concrete and undeniable fact: the appellant had already appeared before the Investigating Officer on multiple dates — from January 8 to 12, 2026, and again on January 20, 2026 — pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court. He had fully cooperated with the investigation. There was not a single allegation before the Court that he had misused the liberty granted, attempted to tamper with evidence, or attempted to influence witnesses. In these circumstances, the Court found no material to show that custodial interrogation was indispensable at this stage. "There is no allegation that the appellant has misused the liberty granted," the Court recorded.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated December 5, 2025 refusing anticipatory bail, and made absolute the interim protection earlier granted on January 6, 2026. The Court directed that in the event of arrest in Crime No.171 of 2025 registered at Bhavanipuram Prohibition and Excise Police Station, NTR District, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the arresting officer or the Trial Court may impose, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall always cooperate with the investigation and trial and shall not influence witnesses.

Date of Decision: 10.03.2026