Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs P.P.High Court Of Ap4 on 7 April, 2026
APHC010144632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 2235 & 1248 / 2026
Criminal Petition No.2235 of 2026:
Between:
KESSIREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O UPENDER REDDY, AGED
48 YEARS, R/O LA, JOURNALIST COLONY, JUBILEE HILLS,
SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA (PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL
CUSTODY AT VIJAYWADA DISTRICT JAIL, ANDHRA PRADESH)
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONTEAM,
GOVERNMENTOF ANDHRAPRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PATIL YUGANDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Criminal Petition No.1248 of 2026:
Between:
RONAK KUMAR JASRAJ PALGOTA, R/O. JASRAJ PALGOTA, AGED
32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O. FLAT NO.601, 6TH FLOOR, RAHEJA
EXCELSIOR BUILDING, TARDEO, MUMBAI 400034
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.51
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ADDITIONAL SP,
CID POLICE STATION, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT REP. BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2
COMMON ORDER:
The instant Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 has been filed by the Petitioners
/ Accused Nos.1 and 51 respectively, seeking regular bail in connection with
Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District
registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B read with
Sections 34, 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13
(1) (b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883.
Case of the Prosecution precisely, is as follows:
2. The present crime arises out of allegations concerning large-scale
irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy and functioning of the
Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) during
2019 to 2024. The matter came to light upon a representation made to the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 26.08.2024 by
one Venkateswara Rao Srinivas, alleging irregularities in the excise policy
from 2019 to 2024. The report highlighted issues such as unfair
discrimination in the allocation of Orders for Supply (OFS) of liquor, leading
to the suppression of established brands and preferential treatment for new
brands, in violation of existing norms. It also raised concerns about the shift
from an automated to a manual OFS system, which could allow for
manipulations. After an enquiry, Principal Secretary referred the complaint to
CID Police, Mangalagiri, which registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2024
1 For short ‘BNSS’
2 For short ‘IPC‘
3 For short ‘PC Act‘
3against unknown persons on 23.09.2024, alleging offences under Sections
409, 420, and 120-B of IPC. On 05.02.2025, the Government constituted a
Special Investigation Team (SIT), vide G.O.Rt.No.262 to investigate the
alleged irregularities in the excise policy and related crimes.
Arguments advanced at the Bar:
3. Heard Sri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.1,
Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Shagufta
Jahan Noor, learned counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.51, and Sri
Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi
Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor for State.
On behalf of the Petitioner / Accused No.1:
4. Sri Siddharth Dave, Learned Senior Counnsel for the Petitioner /
Accused No.1 would submit that this is the second bail application filed
before this Court by the Petitioner seeking regular bail. The first application
in Crl.P.No.11425 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide Common Order
dated 29.01.2026 mainly on the ground that if the Petitioner is released on
bail, he may either facilitate the evasion of Accused No.7 in the present
crime, who is his co-brother from the process of law or impede the efforts of
the investigating agency to secure his presence. Learned Senior Counsel
would further submit that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to be withdrawn with a liberty to
renew the plea for regular bail at an appropriate stage.
4
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that, Accused No.7, who is the
basis for denial of bail to the Petitioner herein, has surrendered before the
Investigating Agency on 26.02.2026 in order to cooperate with the
investigation and has been sent for judicial remand on the same day.
Subsequently, he was granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
20.03.2026. As such, the basis for the denial of bail to the Petitioner by this
Court stands removed and there are no legal or factual fetters to grant bail to
the Petitioner, in view of the above substantive change in circumstances.
Learned Senior Counsel argues that, so far, 15 Accused were arrested
out of which, 13 Accused were already granted bail. It is submitted that the
investigation in so far as the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned, has
been completed and charge sheet has also been filed, however, cognizance
of the offences has not been taken. It is contended that, prolonged pre-trial
incarceration without the trial commencing constitutes a violation of the right
to liberty. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the Petitioner / Accused No1.
On behalf of Accused No.51:
5. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner / Accused
No.51 would submit that the Petitioner is no way connected with the present
crime and the allegations levelled against him are baseless. Learned Senior
Counsel would further submit that, as far as the transactions with regard to
the bullion entities are concerned, they were carried out in the normal course
of his business. It is further submitted that there are no specific overt acts
attributed against the Petitioner / Accused No.51. Learned Senior Counsel
5would contend that the investigation in the present case is completed and
charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, further detention of the
Petitioner / Accused No.51 would be punitive in nature and amount to pre-
trial punishment. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the Petitioner / Accused
No.51. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed
reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikati
Narasimhulu and others vs. P.P.High Court of AP4, Sanjay Chandra vs.
CBI5, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra6, Manish
Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement7, Prem Prakash vs. Union of
India through the Directorate of Enforcement8, Santendra Kumar Antil
vs. CBI and another9, Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another10.
On behalf of Respondent / State:
6. Per contra, Sri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of State, would submit that, so far as Petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned,
there are no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of his earlier
bail application. However, it is conceded about the grant of bail to Accused
No.7 in the present crime, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
So far as Petitioner / Accused No.51 is concerned, learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the investigation so far done established the
4
(1978) 1 SCC 240
5
(2012) 1 SCC 40
6
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920
8
AIR 2024 SC 4286
9
(2022) 10 SCC 51
10
(2022) 8 SCC 559
6
active involvement of Petitioner / Accused No.51 in the alleged offences and
he received substantial amounts from the shell entitled operated by Accused
No.49 into their bullion concerns, indicating conversion of layered funds into
bullion and facilitation of cash delivery as part of the proceeds of crime
distribution network. There are no grounds to grant bail to Petitioner /
Accused No.51 at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
7. Having heard the rival submissions on sides, this Court has perused
the material available on record. Now, the point that arises for determination
is:
Whether the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 51 are entitled for the grant
of regular bail?
Determination by the Court
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement11, categorically held that Article 21 serves as a constitutional
safety valve that can override even the most stringent statutory bars to bail.
It was also emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention must not be
utilized as a tool for punishment, as punishment should only follow a formal
conviction. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
also observed that gross delay in trial disposal justifies the invocation of
Article 21, even in matters governed by laws with restrictive bail provisions.
11 (2024) 12 SCC 660
12 (2021) 3 SCC 713
7
While reiteration this position of law the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Dham
v Directorate of Enforcement13 held as follows:
“18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without
commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be
countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial
detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by
their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and
therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class war-
ranting a blanket denial of bail.”
9. In the case on hand, admittedly, Petitioner / Accused No.1 was
arrested on 21.04.2025 in connection with the present crime. There is no
dispute about the fact that the Petitioner / Accused No.1 has joined the
investigation. The investigation insofar as the Petitioner / Accused No.1 has
also been completed and he has been in judicial custody from the past
nearly about one year. Further, no cognizance has been taken and there is
no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. It is also not in dispute
that, the earlier application of Petitioner / Accused No.1 for regular bail was
rejected primarily on the ground that his release on bail may facilitate the
evasion of Accused No.7 and impede the investigation. It is now brought to
the notice of this Court that Accused No.7 has, since, surrendered before the
Investigating Agency on 26.02.2026, was remanded to judicial custody, and
has subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Thus, the very basis on which the earlier bail application of the Petitioner /
Accused No.1 was rejected, no longer survives. This constitutes a
13
2026 INSC 12
8
substantial change in circumstances warranting fresh consideration of the
present application.
10. It is further evident that out of the total Accused, a majority have
already been granted bail. The investigation, insofar as the Petitioner /
Accused No.1 is concerned, has been completed and charge sheet has also
been filed. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the Petitioner /
Accused No.1, particularly when cognizance is yet to be taken and trial is not
likely to commence immediately, would amount to pre-trial detention of an
indefinite nature. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India mandates that detention pending trial should not be
punitive. In that view, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner /
Accused No.1 is entitled to regular bail.
11. Insofar as the Petitioner / Accused No.51 is concerned, though the
prosecution has alleged that the Petitioner received funds from entities linked
to Accused No.49 and converted the same into bullion, at this stage, what is
required to be examined is whether the continued detention of the Petitioner /
Accused No.51 is necessary. A careful perusal of the material does not
prima facie discloses that the transactions, as contended by the Petitioner,
appear to be part of regular business dealings, which would require detailed
examination during trial. The contention of the prosecution is that he has
actively participated in the alleged offences and facilitated transactions
involving proceeds of crime. However, it is not disputed that the investigation
has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. The
9
allegations, though serious, are matters to be established during trial. At this
stage, continued detention of the Petitioner / Accused No.51 would not serve
any further investigational purpose. In the absence of any specific material
indicating that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, his
continued incarceration would also amount to pre-trial punishment.
12. This Court considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioners, wherein it has been consistently held that bail is the rule
and jail is an exception, and that prolonged pre-trial detention ought to be
avoided when the investigation is complete.
13. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the nature of
allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the completion of investigation,
and the change in circumstances insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, this
Court is of the considered view that both the Petitioners are entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the Petitioners /
Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall be released on bail, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall execute personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two
sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10
(ii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall surrender their
passports, if any, before the trial Court and shall not leave India without prior
permission of the said Court.
(iii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further
investigation, if any.
(iv) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not directly or
indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any
prosecution witness.
(v) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not contact any of
the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.
(vi) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall file their affidavits
before the trial Court disclosing all their movable and immovable properties,
bank accounts, demat accounts, business interests, and financial holdings,
whether held individually or jointly within a period of two weeks from the date
of his release.
(vii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not make or
publish or disseminate any information, statement, or post whether in print,
electronic or social media concerning the present crime till conclusion of the
trial.
(viii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not alienate,
encumber, or create third-party interests in any property disclosed by them or
identified by the prosecution, without prior permission of the trial Court.
11
(ix) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall not operate or
manage any company, firm, or bank account alleged to have been used in
connection with the offence, except with prior intimation to the Investigating
Agency.
(x) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall furnish their active
mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all times
and any change shall be intimated forthwith.
(xi) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 51 shall appear before the
Investigating Agency twice in a month i.e., on 2nd and 4th Sunday between
10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.
In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only
for the purpose of deciding the bail applications and they shall not be
construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.07.04.2026
Note: Issue C.C today
B/o.
Dinesh
12
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.Nos: 2235 & 1248 / 2026
Dated:07.04.2026
Dinesh