Economic Offences Are a Class Apart: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹3200 Crore Liquor Scam Case

"Misuse of Public Office, Cash Seizure, and Toll Records Show Prima Facie Conspiracy – Anticipatory Bail Not a Matter of Routine in Serious Financial Crimes" - Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling delivered by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by Chevireddy Mohith Reddy, a former Chairman of the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA) and Accused No.39 in a sprawling ₹3200 crore liquor policy scam.

The case, which has come to symbolize the intersection of political power, corruption, and economic crime, involves allegations of misuse of public office for cash distribution during the 2024 General Elections, with direct evidence linking the petitioner to the unauthorized use of government vehicles for transporting illicit funds. The High Court held that the scale, gravity, and systemic nature of the conspiracy demand custodial interrogation, and anticipatory bail in such cases cannot be granted as a matter of right or routine.

“The Right to Anticipatory Bail Is Not Absolute—Especially in Cases of Economic Conspiracy Involving Public Money”

The petitioner, Mohith Reddy, a former TUDA Chairman and son of a sitting MLA (Accused No.38), was accused of providing a TUDA-allotted official vehicle to facilitate the transport of crores of unaccounted cash allegedly generated as kickbacks from liquor contracts. The CID and Special Investigation Team (SIT) claim that the cash was part of a larger operation to distribute money across districts for electioneering purposes, forming part of a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving bureaucrats, politicians, and distilleries.

Rejecting the plea, the Court cited the Supreme Court's consistent position that anticipatory bail is not an enforceable right, especially where public funds, institutional integrity, and systemic corruption are involved:

"The power conferred under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases of economic offences." — P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24

Justice Pratapa observed:

“Anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, in serious economic offences involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes as they constitute a class apart.” [Para 11]

“Non-Disclosure of Prior FIRs and Continued Evasion Weigh Heavily Against the Accused”

A key factor influencing the Court’s decision was the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. The petitioner failed to inform the Court about four earlier FIRs registered against him, a fact later brought on record through a memo filed by the prosecution.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Muneesh v. State of U.P., the Court held:

“Incorrect disclosure of antecedents could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the said petition.” [Para 8]

Further, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to comply with repeated summons under Section 179 BNSS, indicating a pattern of non-cooperation:

“Though notices under Section 179 BNSS dated 21.06.2025 and 27.06.2025 were issued, the Petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Agency.” [Para 5]

The argument that mere non-cooperation should not bar anticipatory bail was rejected, as the Court emphasized the requirement for custodial interrogation to trace the trail of illicit money.

“Prima Facie Material Exists—TUDA Vehicle Was Used to Transport Cash; Logbooks Contradicted by Toll Records”

The prosecution placed substantial material before the Court, including:

• Statement of the gunman (L.W.162) who confirmed that Mohith Reddy arranged a TUDA vehicle for transporting money on behalf of his father.

• Toll data from multiple plazas which contradicted the logbooks submitted by TUDA, indicating falsification of records.

• A seizure of ₹8.36 crore from the very vehicle allegedly facilitated by the petitioner, intercepted at Garikapadu Check Post on 09.05.2024.

• The vehicle in question was a White Toyota Fortuner bearing Regn. No. AP 39 BV 3259, allotted to the petitioner in his official capacity.

The Court held:

“The vehicle log books submitted by the concerned drivers to TUDA office reflect that, between November, 2023 to March, 2024, the subject vehicle never travelled to Hyderabad, which is contrary to the data obtained from various toll plazas.” [Para 9]

“On 09.05.2024, the subject vehicle, while carrying the cash, was caught by the Police at Garikapadu Check Post, and cash of ₹8.36 Crores was seized.” [Para 10]

The prima facie nexus between the vehicle misuse and the accused was deemed well-established.

“Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Unravel Complex Financial Web”

The Court emphasized that economic offences often involve complex chains of transactions and actors, requiring detailed investigation that cannot be achieved without custodial interrogation. The Bench relied on the SC judgment in State v. Anil Sharma, where it was held:

“Success in interrogation is conditional on custody; a person under the shadow of anticipatory bail is likely to avoid many pointed questions.”

Echoing this concern, the High Court observed:

“Custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the trail of money and examine the depth of conspiracy.” [Para 12]

“Political Vendetta Argument Unsustainable Against Evidentiary Record”

While the defence argued that the prosecution was politically motivated, and the petitioner was targeted due to his electoral contest, the Court found this insufficient in light of material evidence:

“This instance is not helpful to the Petitioner in respect of granting anticipatory bail, in view of the specific allegations levelled against him in the present crime.” [Para 10]

The Court underscored that political allegations cannot override the presence of direct, corroborated evidence, particularly in economic crimes involving public money.

Anticipatory Bail Denied in Public Interest and Legal Principle

Summarizing its position, the Court held: “Considering the gravity of the offence, magnitude of the economic nature of the crime, prima facie presence of verifiable material against the Petitioner/ Accused No.39, and potential punishment… this is not a fit case for exercising discretion under Section 482 BNSS.” [Para 13]

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No. 6892 of 2025 was dismissed, and the interim protection withdrawn, clearing the path for further custodial proceedings.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that economic offences affecting public trust must be met with strict scrutiny, and that anticipatory bail is not a shield against investigative due process when credible material shows prima facie involvement in large-scale corruption.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2025