Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shri K. Dhananjaya Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
APHC010235472026
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3700, 3701 & 3702 of 2026
Criminal Petition No.3700 of 2026:
Between:
SHRI K. DHANANJAYA REDDY, S/O. K. REDDENNA, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARSI.A.S RETIRED, R/O. FLAT NO.1004, C BLOCK, FORTUNE
ONE, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA
... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.31
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE INVESTIGATINGOFFICER,SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM SIT2ND FLOOR, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA,NTR KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP
AMARAVATI
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.31:
1. SAI SARAN CHODISETTY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
2
Criminal Petition No.3701 of 2026:
Between:
PELLAKURU KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, S/O RAMA SUBBA REDDY,
67 YRS, VILLA NO.9A, SUNRISE VALLEY,UPPERPALLY,
ATTAPUR,RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.32
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATHI.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.32:
1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
Criminal Petition No.3702 of 2026:
Between:
BALAJI GOVINDAPPA, S/O. MUNEGOWDA GOVINDAPPA, AGED 61
YEARS, FLAT NO.101, H.NO. MCH 8-2-624/A/B/3/1, BURRI
RESIDENCY, ROAD NO.11, CITY CENTER, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD - 500034
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.33
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE INVESTIGATING OFFICERSPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT) 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA,NTR KRISHNA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
3
Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.33:
1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
1. The instant Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 have been filed by the Petitioners/
Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33, 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.
2. The case relates to the alleged large-scale irregularities in the
excise policy and functioning of APSBCL during 2019-2024, including
discriminatory OFS allocation and manipulation of the manual OFS system.
Based on a complaint dated 26.08.2024, CID registered Crime No.21 of 2024
on 23.09.2024 for the alleged offences and the present Petitioners were
arraigned as Accused Nos.31 to 33 in the said crime.
3. Petitioner / Accused No. 31, the former Secretary to the Chief
Minister, alleged to have played a key role in suppressing popular liquor
brands as part of a syndicate involving high-ranking officers, political
1
For short ‘BNSS’
2
For short ‘IPC‘
3
For short ‘PC Act‘
4
authorities, and close associates of Accused No.1. Petitioner / Accused No.
32, a retired Special Deputy Collector, worked as Officer on Special Duty in
the Chief Minister’s Office during the relevant period. Petitioner / Accused No.
33 is alleged of being involved in a kickback scheme, collecting ill-gotten
money as part of the conspiracy.
4. Petitioners / Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 were arrested on
16.05.2025, 16.05.2025 and 13.05.2025 respectively and were remanded to
judicial custody on 17.05.2025, 17.05.2025 and 14.05.2025 respectively,
which was periodically extended from time to time. The Investigating Agency
filed charge sheets dated 19.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 within the statutory
period of 90 days. The learned Special Judge treated the charge sheets as
incomplete and enlarged Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 on default
bail vide orders dated 06.09.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed
Crl.P.Nos.9363, 9364 and 9365 of 2025 before this Court, and the same were
allowed vide Common Order dated 19.11.2025, directing Petitioners/ Accused
Nos.31, 32 and 33 to surrender before the Special Court on or before
26.11.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33
preferred S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.,18853, 18836 and 18840 of 2025 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which were dismissed on 21.01.2026 by way
of a Common Order, observing that, “in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated
19.11.2025.” However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the interim
protection granted vide Order dated 26.11.2025 shall continue to operate,
5
thereby enabling the Petitioners to seek regular bail before the Special Court.
Pursuant thereto, the Petitioners filed applications before the Special Court
seeking regular bail in Crl.P.Nos.,220, 230 and 255 of 2026. The said
applications were dismissed by the Special Court, vide Common Order dated
24.04.2026. Thereafter, the present applications are filed before this Court,
seeking grant of regular bail.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
5. Heard Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sai
Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel for the Petitioner/ A.31, Sri Siddharth
Dave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned
counsel for the Petitioner/ A.32, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for Petitioner / A.33,
and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Javvaji
Sarath Chandra, learned Special Prosecutor and Sri M.Lakshminarayana,
learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
6. In unison, Sri S.Sriram, Sri Siddhartha Dave and Sri S.Niranjan
Reddy, Learned Senior Counsels would submit that, except for the present
Petitioners, all other Accused who were arrested have already been released
on bail, and the principle of parity applies. It is further submitted that the
Investigating Agency has filed the police report against these Petitioners and
that the investigation is complete as far as the present Petitioners are
concerned. Learned Senior Counsels would further submit that, so far, a large
number of witnesses have been examined and four supplementary charge
6
sheets have 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. It is further
submitted that nothing adverse has been reported against the Petitioners by
the Investigating Agency after their release from the date of default bail. It is
submitted that the Petitioners are senior citizens, that Petitioner/Accused
No.32 has been suffering from old-age ailments, that there is no flight risk, and
that the Petitioners have never interfered with the investigation in the present
crime. Hence, it is prayed that bail be granted to the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.31, 32 and 33.
7. Per contra, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State would submit that the Petitioners herein are the
facilitators of the other Accused in committing the alleged large liquor scam,
and hence, they cannot seek the benefit of the principle of parity. It is further
submitted that the absence of any adverse report against the Petitioners after
their release on interim bail is not a ground for grant of regular bail. He would
further submit that consideration of a regular bail application presupposes that
the Accused is in judicial custody, and that in the present case, the default bail
order by virtue of which the Petitioners were released was itself set aside by
this Court as illegal. It is also submitted that sanction, insofar as some of the
Accused are concerned, has not yet been obtained, and hence, cognizance
could not be taken. He concluded his submissions by praying for dismissal of
the present applications.
7
Point for Determination
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing on both the
sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises
for determination in these petitions is as follows:
Whether the respective Petitioners are entitled to the grant of regular
bail?
Determination by this Court
9. Before delving into the question of grant of bail in each of these
petitions, it is beneficial to state the settled principles of law governing bail
jurisprudence.
10. Consideration for the grant of bail is not governed by a straitjacket
formula, and it has to be determined on a case-to-case basis, depending on
the facts involved. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,4 discussed the factors to be
considered in dealing with a bail application, including the nature of accusation
and severity of punishment, the possibility of tampering with witnesses, the
likelihood of the accused’s presence being secured at trial, the character and
antecedents of the accused, and the larger interest of the public or the State.
11. It is also settled that economic offences constitute a class apart in
the context of bail applications, as noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari5, Nimmagadda
4
(2020) 13 SCC 791
5
(2019) 9 SCC 165
8
Prasad v. CBI6, and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar7, given that such offences
involve deep-rooted conspiracies and pose a threat to the financial health of
the nation, warranting a cautious approach. However, as clarified in P.
Chidambaram (supra), even in cases of grave economic offence, it is not an
invariable rule that bail must be denied, and the ultimate consideration
remains case-specific, with the precedent of another case alone not being
determinative. In a catena of decisions viz., Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote, 8 at para 3, and Ajwar v. Waseem, 9 at para 17, it has
been cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, at the stage of granting
bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits of the case should be avoided. Thus, though satisfaction of a prima
facie case is necessary, an exhaustive exploration of the merits ought to be
avoided
12. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 10 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. In Union of India v.
6
(2013) 7 SCC 466
7
(2017) 13 SCC 751
8
(1980) 2 SCC 559
9
2025 INSC 968
10
(2024) 12 SCC 660
9
K.A. Najeeb,11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that gross delay
in the disposal of trial 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.12
13. Viewed together, 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 and
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, and the larger interests of the public and the
State.
14. In case at hand, the allegations levelled against the Petitioners
/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 are undoubtedly serious in nature and pertain to
economic offences involving substantial public interest. At the same time, it is
trite that the gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny
bail, particularly when the investigation is substantially complete and the
Petitioners have been in custody for a considerable period. It is not in dispute
that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 are in judicial custody and that
the charge sheet has already been filed. The investigation, insofar as the
Petitioners are concerned, appears to have been completed. The Petitioners/
Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 have been in custody for a substantial period.
11
(2021) 3 SCC 713
12
2026 INSC 12
10
Prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly in cases involving
voluminous documentary evidence and multiple Accused, would inevitably
delay the conclusion of the trial. Admittedly, the other Accused, with whom the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 are alleged to have a nexus in the
alleged crime, have been granted bail. The investigation against the
Petitioners being substantially complete, the likelihood of prejudice to the
prosecution case can be adequately mitigated by imposing appropriate and
stringent conditions. Though the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot
be applied mechanically, no material distinction has been demonstrated to
justify differential treatment resulting in the continued detention of the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32, and 33.
15. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that the
Petitioners’ continued release is illegal, merely because the default bail order
was set aside. Though this Court vide an order dated 19.11.2025, set aside
the default bail order dated 06.09.2025, passed by the Special Court, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while declining to interfere with that order, directed
that the interim protection granted to the Petitioners shall continue to operate,
and granted them liberty to seek regular bail. It is thus the order dated
21.01.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and not the default bail order, that
presently enables the release of the Petitioners. The illegality of the default
bail order therefore does not affect the validity of their continued release and
this peculiarity of the situation cannot be held against the Petitioners.
11
16. As regards the submission that sanction, insofar as some of the
Accused are concerned, has not yet been obtained, and hence cognizance
could not be taken, this Court finds that the said circumstance cannot be held
against the Petitioners. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ravinder
Mehta v. State of Uttar Pradesh13, while considering a similar situation
where sanction for prosecution was yet to be granted despite the charge sheet
having been filed, held that the delay in grant of sanction to prosecute cannot
be used to the disadvantage of a citizen for curtailing his liberty. Applying the
said principle to the facts of the present case, the pendency of sanction
against some of the co-accused cannot, by itself, justify the continued
incarceration of the Petitioners, particularly when the charge sheet qua the
Petitioners has already been filed and the investigation, insofar as they are
concerned is complete.
17. As also discussed, prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly
where the charge sheet has been filed, the investigation is substantially
complete, cognizance of the offences has not yet been taken, and the trial is
unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, may infringe the guarantee of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to
the period of custody undergone by the Petitioners, the stage of the
proceedings, the absence of material indicating a risk of abscondence or
interference with the trial, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 is not warranted at this stage.
13
SLP (Crl.) No.9005/2026, dated 17 July 2026
12
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.31, 32 and 33 are entitled to the benefit of bail.
18. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos.3700, 3701 and 3702 of 2026,
are allowed and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall be released
on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 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 Special Court.
(ii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall surrender their
passports, if any, before the Special Court and shall not leave India without
prior permission of the said Court.
(iii) The Petitioner/Accused No.32 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further
investigation, if any.
(iv) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31 and 33 shall appear before the
Investigating Agency once in a month i.e., on 1st Sunday between 10.00 a.m.
and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.
(v) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall not directly or
indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any
prosecution witness.
(vi) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall not contact any
of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.
13
(vii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall file their
affidavits before the Special 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 their release.
(viii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 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.
(ix) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 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 Special Court.
(x) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 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.
(xi) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 shall furnish their
active mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all
times and any change shall be intimated forthwith.
In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
14
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.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:27.07.2026
Dinesh
15
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.Nos.3700, 3701 & 3702 of 2026
Dt.27.07.2026
Dinesh
