Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs State Of on 24 March, 2026
APHC010713262025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No: 1238 / 2026
Between:
ANIL CHOKHARA, S/O.BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.1103, KESAVA KUNJ III,
NAVI MUMBAI, THANE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.49
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CID POLICE STATION,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.49:
1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused
No.49, 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
1For short ‘BNSS’
2
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
against 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.
3. Petitioner herein is Accused No.49 in the above crime. The
allegations against the Petitioner / Accused No.49 are that, he deeply
2 For short ‘IPC‘
3 For short ‘PC Act‘
3
involved in a well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy involving creating of bank
accounts and operation and incorporation of shell companies for the
facilitation of transactions arising out of the illicit liquor trade and to route the
funds received as kickbacks. Petitioner is one of the principal organizers of a
structured network of shell companies, operated through benami Directiors
and financial conduits.
Arguments advanced at the Bar:
4. Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth, learned counsel for the Petitioner /
Accused No.49, and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
State.
On behalf of the Petitioner / Accused No.49:
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.49 would submit that
the complaint, FIR, and remand report do not attribute any specific overt act
or distinct role to the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that
the alleged act of converting white money into black money is not per se
criminalized under the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of a statutory
prohibition, the prosecution’s case is fundamentally untenable, rendering the
invocation of IPC provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act legally
unsustainable. It is further submitted that the material on record does not
disclose any act attributable to the Petitioner constituting the alleged
offences. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has also been
filed and hence, continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.
4
Learned counsel further contends that the trial is likely to be
protracted, given the large number of witnesses and voluminous evidence,
thereby infringing the Petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. All evidence is documentary and
already in custody of the investigating agency, eliminating any risk of
tampering. The Petitioner has cooperated throughout and was initially treated
as a witness before being arrested. It is submitted that, Accused No.4, who
is alleged to be a principal conspirator was already released on bail, and the
principle of parity applies. The Petitioner has no convictions and has
consistently complied with legal processes in prior cases. In these
circumstances, no offence is made out, and continued incarceration is
unjustified. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner is ready to
abide any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence,
prayed to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.49 on bail. In support of their
contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others4, Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra5,
P.Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6, State of Kerala
vs. Raneef7.
4
(2007) 12 SCC 1
5
(2008) 16 SCC 14
6
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7532 of 2025, dated 16.05.2025
7
(2011) 1 SCC 784
5
On behalf of Respondent / State:
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Prosecution would submit
that, the present bail application is not maintainable as all grounds now
urged were already considered and rejected by the learned Special Judge,
Vijayawada in Crl. M.P. No. 2094 of 2025 by order dated 04.02.2026. The
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any change in circumstances warranting
reconsideration. It is further submitted that, the Petitioner was absconding
and was arrested only after execution of non-bailable warrants, reflecting
disregard for the process of law. The investigation clearly establishes his role
in a large-scale criminal conspiracy involving creation and operation of shell
companies for laundering illicit funds arising from the liquor trade.
Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the material on
record, including multiple witness statements, bank records, and forensic
evidence, shows that ₹77.55 crores were routed through shell entities
controlled by the Petitioner under the guise of bogus transactions. The
investigation has also revealed that these shell companies were created
using fabricated or misused KYC credentials, with the Petitioner exercising
actual control through benami directors. Physical verification and witness
statements confirm that these entities had no genuine business activity.
It is further submitted that there exists a strong prima facie case
supported by oral, documentary, and electronic evidence, including CDRs
and FSL reports establishing nexus with co-accused. Further, the Petitioner’s
criminal antecedents in similar economic offences demonstrate his conduct
6
in committing such crimes and strengthen the apprehension that he may
interfere with the investigation if released. The fact that he has obtained bail
in other cases does not entitle him to bail in the present matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor would finally submit that, in view of the
gravity of the offence, the role played by the Petitioner, the strong prima facie
case, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence, the present bail
application deserves to be rejected. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
petition. In support of their contentions, learned Public Prosecutor has
placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netsity
Systems (Ltd.) vs. State (NCT Delhi)8, State of Rajasthan vs. Indraj
Singh9, Manik Madhukar Sarve vs. Vitthal Damuji Meher10, Centrum
Financial Services Ltd., vs. State (NCT Delhi)11, State of Bihar vs. Amit
Kumar12, Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI13, Nimmagadda Prasad vs.
CBI14 and Hemant Dhasmana vs. CBI15
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 Petitioner / Accused No.49 is entitled for the grant of
regular bail?
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 518
10
(2024) 10SCC 753
11
(2022) 13 SCC 28
12
(2017) 13 SCC 751
13
(2013) 7 SCC 439
14
(2013) 7 SCC 466
15
(2001) 7 SCC 536
7Determination by the Court
8. Before delving into the question of grant of bail in this petition, it is
beneficial to state the settled principles of law governing bail jurisprudence.
9. Consideration for grant of bail is not in a strait jacket formula and it will
have to be determined on case-to-case basis on the facts involved. A three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement16, discussed the factors to be considered in
dealing with a bail application as follows;
“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken
into consideration while considering an application for bail:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the
materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or
the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his
abscondence;
(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and
the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar
other considerations.
[Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001)
4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] .]
***
23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ,
it was held as under: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well-settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a16(2020) 13 SCC 791
8need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other circumstances,
the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598]
and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC
338.)”
24. Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of
bail, in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 481] , it was held as under: (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16)
“16. … The considerations which normally weigh with the
court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been
explained by this Court in State v. Jagjit
Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1
Cri LJ 215] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1
SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] and basically they are —
the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of
the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the
accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger
interest of the public or the State and other similar factors
which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
25. After referring to para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528], in State of
U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005)
8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , it was held as under:
(Amarmani Tripathi case [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005)
8 SCC 21] , SCC p. 31, para 18)
“18. It is well-settled that the matters to be considered in
an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the
charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or
9fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour,
means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001)
4 SCC 280] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] ]. While a
vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail,
if the accused is of such character that his mere presence
at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is
material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be
refused.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is also settled principle that economic offences constitute as a class
apart in the context of considering bail applications, as has been noted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin
Johari17, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI18 and State of Bihar v. Amit
Kumar19. Such cases involve deep-rooted conspiracies and massive
siphoning of public funds, which pose a direct threat to the national financial
health and the moral fabric of society, warranting a cautious approach to bail,
particularly those alleged to be the “kingpin” with the utmost seriousness.
Explaining this, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Chidambaram case referred to supra, held as follows;
“23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either
side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this
Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity
of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity17 (2019) 9 SCC 165
18(2013) 7 SCC 466
19(2017) 13 SCC 751
10of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the
Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from
the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the
consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial
irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall
under the category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while
considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have
to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made
against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity
of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the
offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration
with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to
the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied.In that
regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the
allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail
should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in
the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail
jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that
irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of
another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of
bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts
involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand
trial.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the light of the precedents referred to above, in the context of
economic offences, while considering an application for bail, the Court is
required to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of the
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment that a conviction
may entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances peculiar to the
accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at trial, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State, and other similar considerations.
12. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., Niranjan
Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote,20 at para 3; Ajwar v. Waseem,21 at
20 (1980) 2 SCC 559
11
para 17, it was cautioned that at the stage of granting bail, detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the
case should be avoided. Thus, though a prima facie case satisfaction is
necessary, an exhaustive exploration of the merits should be avoided.
13. It is also settled in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan22, at
para 20, that while an accused possesses the right to file successive bail
applications, the Court has a mandatory duty to consider the reasons for
previous rejections and record fresh grounds for a new decision. Any bail
order that lacks such reasoning or fails to consider the gravity of the offence
suffers from a non-application of mind. Further, in State of Tamil Nadu v.
S.A.Raja23 at para 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for a successive
bail application to be maintainable, there must be a substantial change in
circumstances rather than mere cosmetic updates.
14. It is also well settled that parity is not an absolute claim for grant of bail
and it applies only when the roles of the individuals are similar in nature.
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh&
Another,24 held that in the context of bail applications, parity is focused on
the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being
the only common factor between the accused persons. It was explained that
when weighing an application on parity, it is “position” that is important and
that this requirement of “position” is not satisfied solely by involvement in the
21 2025 INSC 968
22(2004) 7 SCC 528
23(2005) 8 SCC 380
24
2025 INSC 1370
12
same offence; rather, it refers to the role of the accused in the commission of
the crime, including the nature and extent of his involvement.
15. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement25, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that Article 21 serves as a constitutional safety valve
that can override even the most stringent statutory bars to bail. It was held
that 17 months of pre-trial incarceration without the trial commencing
constitutes a violation of the right to liberty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also
emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention must not be utilized as a tool
for punishment, as punishment should only follow a formal conviction.
Additionally, in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb26, it was held that gross delay
in trial disposal justifies the invocation of Article 21, even in matters governed
by laws with restrictive bail provisions. This position of law has also been
recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Dham v Directorate
of Enforcement.27
16. In the present case, upon consideration of the rival submissions and
the material placed on record, this Court finds that though the allegations
levelled against the Petitioner are undoubtedly grave and relate to alleged
economic offences involving substantial financial transactions, the
parameters governing grant of bail at the pre-trial stage must be applied with
due regard to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
25 (2024) 12 SCC 660
26
(2021) 3 SCC 713
27
2026 INSC 12
13
17. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the investigation in the present
case has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed
before the competent Court. Consequently, the custodial interrogation of the
Petitioner is no longer required. The continued detention of an accused, once
the investigation is complete, must be justified on compelling grounds such
as the likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or
absconding from the process of law. In the case at hand, the prosecution has
not demonstrated any specific or imminent circumstance necessitating
further custodial detention of the Petitioner, particularly when the entire case
rests substantially on documentary and electronic evidence already collected
and secured by the investigating agency.
18. This Court also takes into account that the nature of evidence in the
present case is largely documentary, including bank records, company
documents, and electronic data. Such evidence, which is in the custody of
the investigating authorities, is far from the possibility of being tampered.
While the apprehension of the prosecution regarding possible interference
cannot be brushed aside lightly, the same can be adequately addressed by
imposing stringent conditions.
19. Further, the record indicates that the prosecution proposes to examine
a large number of witnesses and relies upon voluminous documentary
material. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that the trial may take
considerable time to conclude. Prolonged incarceration of the Petitioner as
14
an under-trial prisoner, in such circumstances, may infringe the guarantee of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
20. This Court is also mindful of the principle of parity. It is not in dispute
that a co-accused, who is alleged to have played a significant role in the
alleged conspiracy, has already been enlarged on bail. Though parity cannot
be claimed as a matter of right and each case must be assessed on its own
facts, consistency in judicial approach is a relevant consideration. In the
absence of distinguishing features brought on record by the prosecution to
justify differential treatment, denial of bail to the present Petitioner would
require stronger justification. At this stage, this Court consciously refrains
from making any observations on the merits of the allegations or the
evidentiary value of the material collected by the prosecution, as the same
would fall within the domain of the trial Court. The present consideration is
confined to the question of whether the continued detention of the Petitioner
is necessary pending trial.
21. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including
completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet; the documentary
nature of evidence already secured, the likelihood of a protracted trial, and
the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused, this Court is satisfied that
the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. However, considering
the seriousness of the allegations and the magnitude of the alleged offence,
it is apposite that the grant of bail be conditioned by stringent safeguards to
15
ensure the Petitioner’s presence during trial and to protect the integrity of the
prosecution case.
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Petitioner /
Accused No.49 shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall execute personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like
sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(ii) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall surrender his passport, if
any, before the trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission
of the said Court.
(iii) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further
investigation, if any.
(iv) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall not directly or indirectly
tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution
witness.
(v) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall not contact any of the
prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.
(vi) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall file his affidavit before the
trial Court disclosing all his 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.
16
(vii) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 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 Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall not alienate, encumber, or
create third-party interests in any property disclosed by him or identified by
the prosecution, without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 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 Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall furnish his active mobile
number to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all times and any
change shall be intimated forthwith.
(xi) The Petitioner / Accused No.49 shall appear before the
Investigating Agency once in a week i.e., on every 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 application 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.24.03.2026
Note: Issue C.C today
B/o.
Dinesh
17
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No:1238 / 2026
Dated:24.03.2026
Dinesh