Section 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Simply Because Custodial Interrogation Is Not Required Or If Prima Facie Case Exists: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right simply on the premise that custodial interrogation is not necessary, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences.

A bench of Smt. Justice Sunitha Gandham observed that while the court must balance personal liberty with societal interest, the existence of a prima facie case involving large-scale fraud against the public exchequer warrants judicial circumspection.

The petitioner, a former IT Advisor to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2026 registered by the CID, Mangalagiri. The allegations involve a multi-crore liquor transportation tender scam, where the accused allegedly bypassed government-mandated district-level protocols to implement a centralized system that facilitated pecuniary benefits for specific private entities. The petitioner contended that the current FIR is a case of "evergreening" by the state, as the subject matter overlaps with a previous case (Crime No. 21 of 2024), and argued that he had already been interrogated extensively.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail in a second, subsequent FIR involving similar subject matter. Additionally, the court examined whether the alleged overlap between two FIRs and the claim of political vendetta constituted valid grounds to bypass custodial interrogation in a matter concerning substantial loss to the state exchequer.

Refuting the 'No Custodial Interrogation' Argument

The court emphasized that the defense's reliance on the lack of need for custodial interrogation is a misconception of law. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., the bench clarified that while custodial interrogation is a relevant factor, it is not the sole determinant for granting or denying pre-arrest bail. The gravity of the accusation and the nature of the economic offence remain paramount.

Economic Offences and Public Interest

The High Court underscored that economic offences affecting the State revenue constitute a distinct class of crimes. Quoting P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court reiterated that power under Section 482 BNSS (equivalent to Section 438 CrPC) is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly. The court noted that when allegations involve a deep-rooted conspiracy and the siphoning of public funds—estimated here to be over Rs. 195 crores—the court must exercise caution to ensure that pre-arrest protection does not prejudice the collection of concealed material.

"Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

Addressing the 'Evergreening' of FIRs

Regarding the petitioner’s contention that the registration of a second FIR while he was already in judicial custody in another matter was an abuse of process, the court held that it is not the appropriate stage for a "mini-trial." The court declined to conduct a threadbare comparative analysis of the two FIRs to determine if they were identical or overlapping, noting that such an exercise is reserved for quash proceedings or trial.

Balancing Rights and Investigation

The bench remarked that allegations of political vendetta or harassment cannot override the necessity of an effective investigation into cognizable offences of this magnitude. While the court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21, it held that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the societal interest in ensuring that the investigation into a systemic fraud is not impeded.

Finding that the material prima facie disclosed the commission of serious cognizable offences and that the investigation was at a crucial stage, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the merits of any ongoing quash proceedings or the eventual trial.

Date of Decision: 07 September 2026