AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟) by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.11 of 2026 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri of the offence under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) and Section 111, 212, 217 and 317 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNS‟).
Case of the petitioner is thus:
Basing on the vigilance report, this crime is registered of the offences under Section 409, 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the Code and Section 111, 212, 217 and 317 of BNS, 2023. CID Police Station, Mangalagiri had earlier registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2024 on the basis of vigilance report on very similar fashion alleging manipulation of liquor policy brands by allegedly forming a syndicate comprising senior bureaucrats, politicians, their associates and other officials of excise department. Transactions alleged in the instant case appears to have been meticulously carved out as part of a planned design to be used as a weapon of harassment against the petitioner. The allegations are primarily directed against the erstwhile Managing Director i.e. respondent No.1 who is alleged to have been manipulated the liquor transport tender process in collusion with other accused and main allegations revolve around the accused No.1 and the new liquor transportation contract policy implemented by accused No.1 only. Vigilance report attempts to implicate this petitioner alleging that he also connivance with other accused to generate illicit income through APSBCL transport agreements. The investigating officer and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in Crime No.11 of 2026 and the investigating officer and the SIT in this instant crime are one and the same and they are fully aware of these aspects as early as 2024-25. None of the offences alleged in the vigilance report are made out prima facie against the petitioner/accused No.3. Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, never involved in any offence, studied M.Tech at IIT Karagpur, established logistics company in the year 2015 and has been operating business across 15+ States with a team of 4000+ delivery executives having one lakh delivery per day and he is ready and willing to abide any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
Respondent State filed counter refuting the averments in the petition, wherein inter alia contended as follows:
Petitioner has not obeyed the direction of this Court dated 24.06.2026 to cooperate with the investigating officer and to demonstrate his bona fides, petitioner must follow the directions and cooperate with investigating officer. This petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. In the said case, coercive process could not be executed as he remained outside the reach of the Court and as a last resort, trial Court had declared the petitioner/accused No.3 as proclaimed offender in Crl.M.P.No.1483 of 2026 vide order dated 08.07.2026. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India also denied of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4183 of 2026 and even refused to give interim protection of arrest. Petitioner‟s description of the proceedings as motivated is specifically denied and the investigation has progressed far beyond the original complaint and is now supported by independent witness statements, contemporaneous tender documents, digital forensic material, electronic communications, banking transactions, corporate records, call-data analysis, co-location date and a traced money trial.
Crime No.21 of 2024 concerns the liquor, procurement, brand allocation and kickback conspiracy, whereas, the instant crime concerns is specifically structured conspiracy relating to the State level liquor transportation tender of APSBCL including replacement of the earlier district level transportation arrangement, pre-tender planning, manipulation of tender conditions and bidding, use of front and dummy entities, funding of Earnest Money Deposits and performances bank guarantee, State-wide sub-contracting, inflated transport billing and diversion of the resultant wrongful gains. Petitioner is one of the principle persons who conceived, financed and operationally controlled the transportation arrangement through M/s. TEKKR Exports & Imports Private Limited and associated entities while M/s. Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited was utilized as successful bidder. Digital forensic examination reveals the tender selection documents prior meetings in respect of tender notification commission which is to be distributed among the accused and others. LW-10, an employee of TEKKR was made to function as the operational head for sigma even before commencement of the tender process, investigation reveals involvement of several offences by the employees of the Benami companies.
The transport operations across all 29 APSBCL depots were controlled through the TEKKR establishment under the petitioner‟s supervision and he attempted to depots sigma as an Indian contractor. The financial investigation conducted so far has identified the petitioner as a major beneficiary of the transportation arrangement and has traced wrongful gains of approximately Rs.40 crores attributable to him, subject to completion of the investigation. Approximately Rs.8.10 crores is diverted to companies and accounts under the control of the petitioner.
The investigation reveals transfers aggregating approximately Rs.21.59 crores to nine petrol-bunk entities which has no corresponding role in APSBCL and cash deductions at Rs.19.76 crores. Petitioner exercised control over Sigma operations, caused creation and use of e-mail accounts and SIM credentials in his name and that fake invoices and excess billing were generated under the petitioner‟s directions with the assistance of accused No.5. The oral and financial evidence is independently supported by technical material coupled with call data records, mobile location towers which shows frequent communication among the accused. Electronic banking records, internet-banking material, account statements, electronic fund transfers, corporate records, e-mails and digital accounting data further show movement of substantial sums from Sigma to TEKKR and thereafter, through associated entities including UNI Corporate Solutions, DRE Motors, Ecobent Mobility and Arroyo Services.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is so much required to trace the unaccounted cash component and the complete destination of the wrongful gains. The petitioner‟s status as a proclaimed offender in Crime No.21 of 2024 is also a grave circumstance and the person who remained beyond the reach of process and stands declared a proclaimed offender ordinarily cannot claim to get anticipatory bail. Petitioner‟s educational qualifications are nowhere relating to this case. Prosecution does not seek arrest merely as punitive measures but because of the aforementioned reasons. After taking coercive steps and after passing orders by the trial Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court only, the petitioner came to India and with other formal denials, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Arguments:
Heard Sri Madhu Sudana Sai Ram Asadi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned special public prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant.
(b) Petitioner/Accused No.3:
The petitioner is not a public servant and the essential ingredients necessary to attract the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out against him.
The learned trial court merely issued notice directing the petitioner to appear before the court on 10.08.2026. Therefore, the assertion that the petitioner is declared as proclaimed offender is not correct.
The petitioner informed about his travel to India to surrender before the competent authority vide memo bearing C.F.No.3389 of 2026.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted as both crimes are substantially interlinked and material witnesses have already been examined.
Since the petitioner is in judicial custody, it is open to the respondent investigating agency to seek appropriate permission to examine him in accordance with law.
The petitioner undertakes to surrender his passport and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court.
Further, requested to consider the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel in Crl.P.No.3077 of 2026 and they are as follows:
Over implications in the first information report are not applicable to the petitioner/accused No.3 and the administrative decisions taken by the petitioner shall not be treated as conspiracy.
There is absolutely no allegation of entrustment and without any allegation of entrustment, there is no offence of breach of trust which can be said to be invoked.
As per the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr1, both offences under Section 406 and 420 are independent and distinct and two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts.
As per Section 111 of BNS, to show organized crime syndicate, more than one charge sheet ought to have been filed before the competent court within the preceding period of ten years and prima facie record reveals that the said section does not attract against the petitioner.
The investigation in respect of the present allegations is already carried out by the investigating agency in Crime No.21 of 2024 and the power to arrest must answer the test of necessity and cannot be exercised mechanically or in a manner which frustrates the liberty of an accused or trumps orders of bail as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI2.
As per the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors3, successive registration of FIRs and arrests deployed to keep an accused in custody despite an order of bail amounts to trumping the bail order and the accused would be entitled to relief in the subsequent cases as well.
While considering application for anticipatory bail, court is required to focus on the exact role attributed to the accused whose application is under consideration; the case of each accused has to be seen on its own footing as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra4.
(C) Respondent/Complainant:
There is no connection between the first case in Crime No.21 of 2024 and this case. This case specifically concerns the transportation, tender arrangement and the change from district level to state level tendering etc. and whether those transactions constitute the very same transaction in Crime No.21 of 2024 is a matter requiring substantive comparison of the two cases and cannot simply be assumed in this application.
The petitioner is not a mere logistics businessman and the material discloses a central operational and financial role. Investigation traces his participation to the pretender stage.
Transport operations across 29 APSBCL depots were operationally controlled through the TEKKR establishment. Subcontract agreements were prepared and executed through the TEKKR personnel. So far, investigation indicates wrongful loss of approximately Rs.188.27 crores to APSBCL and the loss may be upto Rs.200 crores to 400 crores. In complex economic offences and corruption cases, custodial interrogation has a distinct purpose.
Subsequent significant developments occurred on 04.08.2026 after petitioner apprehended in crime No.21 of 2024 and a person who had operated within the TEKKR/Sigma arrangement, gave particulars regarding operational control, E-mail/Sim credentials, fake invoices and excess billing.
Petitioner/accused No.3 is already shown as accused in another serious crime relating to the liquor scam and his status, position and influence make the risk of interference with investigation more serious. The principles in Arvind Kejriwal and Binay Kumar Singh and Another (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts of the case as the instant crime was registered very long prior to the release of the petitioner/accused No.3.
Custodial interrogation is independently necessary to unearth material in respect of pretender electronic documents, communications concerning Sigma, funding of EMD, dummy bidder transactions operational control over 29 depots, collection of deposits etc. and the said information is absolutely within the knowledge of the petitioner.
Present custody of the petitioner in Crime No.21 of 2024 doesn‟t substitute custody or interrogation in this case and conduct of the petitioner and the order dated 07.05.2026 are of direct evidence.
Respondent filed charge sheet by showing him absconding and then the learned trial court gave finding that the petitioner actively absconding or concealing himself and willfully avoiding the execution of the arrest warrant and finally, issued proclamation directing him to appear on 10.08.2026.
Hon‟ble Apex Court also observed that no case to grant interim protection against arrest is made out vide order dated 30.07.2026 in SLP (Crl).No.13525 of 2026.
The gravity of the offence, magnitude of loss and official position of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of feeing from justice, likelihood of influencing witnesses and as such, custodial interrogation is required.
At this stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous trial like appreciation of each item of material and the material discloses a prima face case and as such, custodial interrogation is required.
Learned senior counsel for respondent/complaint relied upon the following judgments:
State Rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma5.
Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning an accused protected by anticipatory bail; it may be necessary to elicit useful information or concealed material. Post-arrest bail considerations cannot simply be imported into pre-arrest bail.
ii) Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (supra).
No legal impediment to arrest a person already in custody for investigation, whether in the same or another offence.
iii) Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)6.
Where an accused against whom coercive process has been issued remains absconding or conceals himself to avoid execution, such conduct strongly militates against anticipatory bail and proclamation/abscondence is a weighty discretionary circumstance against grant of pre arrest protection.
iv) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement7.
Disputed applicability of a penal/predicate provision should not be finally adjudicated at anticipatory-bail stage. No mini-trial. Serious economic offences require circumspection; pre-arrest protection may prejudice effective investigation and collection of concealed material.
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI8.
Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracy and substantial public funds constitute a class apart. Relevant considerations include gravity, material, position/influence of accused, possibility of interference and larger public interest.
On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record including counter filed by the respondent/complainant in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2026 and the written arguments filed by the petitioner and respondent, the point that would arises for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner established grounds to grant interim order/anticipatory bail in Crime No.11 of 2026 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri?”
Crux of the prosecution case is, existing government framework under G.O.Ms.No.357 dated 16.08.2019 which mandated district level transportation arrangements through district committees was consciously bypassed without lawful amendment, relaxation or approval and the said deviation was used as a mechanism to concentrate control over the entire state level transportation process and to facilitate contracts in favour of selected entities at inflated rates and further, petitioner/accused No.3 and accused Nos.2, 4 to 9 and others are responsible for the said violations for their own pecuniary benefits and basing on the vigilance and enforcement department report, this crime is registered and investigation is being conducted by the respondent/complainant.
Before delving into the facts of the case, it is apposite to mention the admitted facts and they are as follows:
Petitioner/accused No.3, accused No.1 and accused No.4 filed this petition and petitions in Crl.P.No.5763 of 2026 and Crl.P.No.3077 of 2026 respectively. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in Crime No.21 of 2024. Respondent/SIT filed charge sheet by showing the petitioner absconding and accordingly, non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. During pendency of non-bailable warrant, petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4183 of 2026 and this petition seeking anticipatory bail and having considered the issuance of non-bailable warrant as well as lookout circular, coordinate bench of this court disposed of the said petition in Crime No.21 of 2024, giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the trial court so as to work out his remedies vide order dated 07.05.2026. Further, in this case also, directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.P.No.4183 of 2026, petitioner/accused No.3 filed Special Leave Appeal (Crl).No.13525 of 2026 and the same is disposed of observing that the petitioner has already surrendered and he has to file appropriate petition before the learned trial court. The instant crime is registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w 120-B IPC and Sections 111, 212, 217 and 317 BNS alleging manipulation of the liquor transportation, tender process of APSBCL. In Crime No.21 of 2024, petitioner/accused No.3 was arrested on 03.08.2026. After registration of the First Information Report in this case, prosecution filed memo adding offences under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.21 of 2024, respondent/SIT filed petition seeking production transit warrant and the same is pending before the learned trial court. When second time this matter is posted before this bench on 20.08.2026, heard arguments in all the matters simultaneously and reserved for orders.
Since averments of the petition, counter and arguments of both sides are mentioned in detail, they are not reproducing again, to avoid repetition.
With regard to the maintainability of this petition, it is to be noted that in Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Another9, while dealing with the right of an accused who is already in judicial custody to file anticipatory bail application in respect of other crime, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that there is no restriction in the text of Section 438 or the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure precluding a person from seeking anticipatory bail in relation to an offence while being in custody in relation to another offence and in the absence of any such restriction, there would be no valid reason to read any prohibition in the text of Section 438 of the Code, to preclude a person in custody from seeking anticipatory bail in relation to different offences.
The petitioner/accused No.3 is already in judicial custody in Crime No.21/2024. As per the version of the petitioner, prosecution filed petition seeking production transit warrant and it is pending. So, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3, he has reasonable apprehension of arrest in the instant case and as such, this petition is absolutely maintainable.
Now, it has to be seen that whether the petitioner/accused No.3 established his case to answer the point in the affirmative and in his favour. As per the version of the petitioner/accused No.3 allegations leveled in this case are already investigated into in Crime No.21 of 2024, official, independent and other witnesses are examined, collected material regarding liquor transportation allegations and only to harass the petitioner/accused No.3, this case is pressed into service and per contra, the said contention is counteracted by the prosecution on the ground that multiple issues are involved in the allegations in respect of liquor transportation and during investigation in Crime No.21 of 2024, SIT unearthed certain information regarding liquor transportation and to find out total scam details for bypassing G.O.Ms.No.357 without approval of the Government, separate investigation is required and except few accused, other accused in both the cases are not one and the same.
Initially in the year 2024, basing on the enquiry report dated 23.09.2024, the case in Crime No.21 of 2024 was registered of the offence under Sections 420, 409, 120B of the Code alleging that internal committee of senior officers of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Department is constituted to inquire into the allegations and after examination of records, committee found: (i) Suppression of the established popular brands and unfair discrimination in allocation of OFS over a period of time leading to almost disappearance of some brands from the market; (ii) Favorable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in violations of the existing norms giving them undue market share and competitive advantage; (iii) The procurement system was shifted to manual process giving scope for manipulation in OFS against the previous system of automated OFS compromising the integrity or the process etc. In the enquiry report of the internal committee, it is highlighted about the issues regarding suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential allocation, orders for supply violation etc.
Further, having considered the vigilance report No.52 (C.No.5117/V & E/D1/Engg/2025) dated 25.11.2025 along with its enclosures received from the Director General, GA (V&E) Department, the instant crime is registered of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code, 111(1), 212, 217, 317(1) BNS and allegations in this case are in respect of transportation-tender conspiracy, displacement of the district-level mechanism under G.O.Ms.No.357, pre-tender preparation, Sigma and later Prasaad Transports, controlled/dummy bidders, EMD financing, tender rate manipulation, extensions, prohibited sub-contracting, commission structures and the resultant financial flows.
Admittedly, total allegations are in respect of alleged violations and fraud occurred in APSBCL. As per the vigilance report No.52 (C.No.5117V&E/D1/Engg/2025) dated 25.11.2025, a systematic and well orchestrated conspiracy involving senior APSBCL officials, politically exposed persons, their benamis who collectively manipulated the liquor transportation tender process between 2020 and 2024 to siphon off massive public funds, willfully violated the G.O.Ms.No.357 dated 16.08.2019 introduced state-level transportation, tender process tailored to benefit specific companies of petitioner/accused No.3, accused Nos.1, 4 and 5, inflated cost of liquor transport from Rs.19.68 crores to Rs.35.57 crores, caused loss of approximately Rs.195.33 crores and the funds were routed through fake vendors. As per the version of the petitioner/accused No.3, findings regarding the allegations of liquor transportation are mentioned in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.21 of 2024 in the statements of LWs-142, 179/Anjani Kumar and 180 and at (i) and (ii) of para 11.34 (generation and laundering of proceeds of crime from transport tender floated by APSBCL), at para Nos.13.9 and 13.10 of prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR/HYZO/33/2025. As seen from the said paragraphs, there are some findings regarding liquor transportation, involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3, accused Nos.1, 4 & 5, one Sh. Anjani Kumar, Ms. Sigma Chain Supply Solutions Private Limited, TEKKR, Arroyo and Ezyload and total amount involved is approximately Rs.3,500 crores.
It is also undisputed fact that the Crime No.21 of 2024 was registered on 23.09.2024 of the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet laid of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code and Sections 111, 212, 217, 317 of BNS. The instant crime is registered on 10.02.2026 of the offence under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Code and Sections 111(1), 212, 217, 317(1) of BNS and subsequently, filed memo adding Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
As per the version of the petitioner, only to keep him behind the bars, this crime is registered. In Arvind Kejriwal (supra), a crime was registered by the CBI against the appellant and he was in judicial custody for 22 months in ED case and after granting regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, CBI sought for his custody and in such circumstances, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the investigating agency must see the necessity of arrest before causing arrest of a person. In this case, the petitioner/accused No.3 was enlarged on bail on 17.04.2026 and after ED arrested him in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026 on 11.06.2026, respondent filed petition under Section 267 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 09.07.2026. In Binay Kumar Singh and another (supra), three crimes are registered on 20.05.2025, 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 respectively and having considered the facts and circumstances of that case, and also by discussing the rights of the accused therein, Hon‟ble Apex Court granted bail to the accused by observing that successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep the accused therein within the custody. In the present case at hand, admittedly, two crimes are registered i.e. one in the year 2024 and the instant crime is registered on 10.02.2026 and as per the prosecution case, basing on the vigilance report dated 25.11.2025, the second crime is registered in respect of specific allegations of liquor transportation tender process.
Record clearly reveals that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in Crime No.21 of 2024 and accused No.3 in this case. Since the respondent could not arrest the petitioner, they filed charge sheet showing the petitioner absconding. Initially, the learned trial court issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Without approaching the learned trial court, petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4183 of 2026 and this petition seeking anticipatory bail and coordinate bench of this court disposed of the Crl.P.No.4183 of 2026 in respect of Crime No.21 of 2024, giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the trial court so as to work out his remedies vide order dated 07.05.2026. Again, without approaching the learned trial Court, petitioner filed Special Leave Appeal (Crl).No.13525 of 2026. Initially, Hon‟ble Apex Court passed order dated 30.07.2026 thus:
“1.No case to grant interim protection against arrest is made out. The said prayer is, accordingly, dismissed. 2. However, if the petitioner returns to India and surrenders before the Investigating authority, his prayer to regular bail (including interim bail) shall be considered in accordance with law.”
Thereafter only, petitioner/accused No.3 returned to India and the respondent/ SIT arrested him on 03.08.2026 and as such, Hon‟ble Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Appeal giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court seeking regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2026. So, conduct of the petitioner/accused No.3 clearly demonstrates that he had not cooperated with the investigating officer and was not available in India and further, after taking coercive steps by issuing proclamation notice and lookout circular only, he had approached this Court and Hon‟ble Apex Court and having considered the facts and circumstances, his request is rejected in Crime No.21 of 2024.
Be that as it may, so far as contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 that Sections 409 and 420 of the Code shall not run together and to attract Section 111(1) of BNS, more than one charge sheet must have been filed within the preceding ten years, this court is conscious about the Sections of law and settled principles of law. While dealing with this petition which is filed seeking anticipatory bail, over all material placed before this court shall be taken into consideration.
With regard to the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and respondent in respect of custodial interrogation/entitlement of the petitioner to get relief, it is to be noted that merely because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K10, wherein it is observed thus:
“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. 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 and he should be granted anticipatory bail.”
Inasmuch as discretion that is to be considered while deciding anticipatory bail is concerned, Hon‟ble Apex Court has consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. The contention of the respondent/SIT that though they examined the petitioner/accused No.3, he has not furnished all details and not answered all questions. In this regard, it is to be noted that it is settled principle of law that bail cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer, as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non cooperation. In a recent case in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat11, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another and there would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. At the same time, the contention of the petitioner that he has appeared before the investigating officer and has joined the investigation do not vest a right of granting anticipatory bail and the case made out against the petitioner/accused No.3 is certainly a relevant ground to consider this petition. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia 12 , it is held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights i.e. safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Further, in P. Chidambaram (supra), it was observed as under:
“69.Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised 2 (2019) 9 SCC 24 sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
70…………..
71.Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. “…except according to a procedure prescribed by law”.
72 to 77……
78.Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences.
Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
It is settled principle of law that pre-trial incarceration makes justification depending upon the offences, heinous nature, term of the sentence prescribed in the statue for such a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, tampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victims and witnesses and further, the court is under an obligation to maintain balance between all stake holders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society and the state.
Prima facie perusal of both FIRs shows that, although the nature of the allegations appears to be similar, analysis from the perusal of the instant first information report, vigilance report No.52 dated 25.11.2025 and other material, it can be culled out that the petitioner/accused No.3 and others violated G.O.Ms.No.357 and committed serious financial irregularities through benami transactions and caused loss to the government exchequer to a tune of Rs.195.33 crores by introducing new state wise transportation tender policy without any prior approval for their financial benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the aforementioned authorities including the authorities relied upon by the both parties, this court is of the considered view that at the stage of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, this Court is not expected to conduct a threadbare comparative analysis of allegations in this case and in Crime No.21 of 2024 and hold a mini trial to decide whether allegations are identical or not. Further, whether the allegations in both crimes are same, overlapping or distinct, whether it is a case of same transaction or different transactions, are all matters to be decided on full facts and in a separate proceedings but not in a bail petition. That exercise is to be done at the time of trial or in the quash petition. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that second FIR is not maintainable. Plea of political vendetta/harassment/mala fides cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail when the material prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence involving huge loss to public exchequer. The allegations are in respect of an economic offence affecting State revenue. Investigation is at crucial stage. The argument that petitioner/accused No.3 is being harassed by registration of successive crimes is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail.
For the foregoing reasons, without expressing any opinion touching the merits of the case as to whether allegations in both cases are same or not, and keeping in view of the gravity of allegations and as per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/accused No.3. It is made clear that observations made herein are only for disposal of this petition and shall not influence the investigation or any other proceeding/trial.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.