Anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on vague allegations; the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable belief of imminent arrest linked to specific offenses.

ORDER :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Petition by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, “BNSS’) seeking pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 involving offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as the 'I.P.C.'), registered at the C.I.D., Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri.

2. The prosecution's case, as outlined in the report dated 23.09.2024, is as follows:

i. On 23.09.2024 at 22:00 hrs, a report was received from Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, via Memo No. Rev-01/CPE/20/2024-VIG-IV, dated 20.09.2024. The complainant outlined concerns regarding irregularities and corruption in APSBCL from October 2019 to March 2024. The report referenced multiple communications, including the Government Memo No. Rev- 01/P&E/Complaints/2024, dated 09.09.2024, and a letter from the MD, APSBCL (Lr.No.APSBCL/OFS/2024-25, dated 18.09.2024), along with its enclosures.

ii. One Y. Venkateswara Rao Srinivas made a representation alleging irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) between October 2019 and March 2024. This was forwarded to the MD, APSBCL, for investigation, and a detailed report was provided per the second reference.

iii. After reviewing the records, the Committee found the irregularities, which are as follows:

(1) Suppression of established popular brands and unfair discrimination in the allocation of OFS (Order for Supply) over a period of time led to the almost complete disappearance of some brands from the market.

(2) Favorable and preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands in violation of the existing norms giving them undue market share and competitive advantage.

(3) The procurement system was shifted to a manual process, giving scope for manipulation in OFS against the previous automated OFS system, compromising the process's integrity.

iv. The MD, APSBCL, reported that the Committee examined the OFS (Order for Supply) data from 2018 onwards, as detailed in the annexures. However, they could not determine the motive behind the discrimination and manipulations observed in the records and data related to the procurement process and other issues raised in the petition. The Committee recommended that an external specialized investigation agency be appointed to take further action; based on the Committee's report, the MD, APSBCL, suggested that the matter be referred to a specialized agency for further investigation.

v. The report has been examined, and considering the seriousness of the matter, as outlined in the Internal Committee's enquiry report, which mentions suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential allocation, and other violations, further action is deemed necessary.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that:

(a) The petitioner asserts Mr Satyaprasad's statement, recorded by the C.I.D., under section 164 of Cr.P.C., is vague and unreliable. The allegations against the petitioner are false, posing a risk of arrest. Despite attempts, the petitioner has not received the memo or evidence linking him to the case, asserting that the events are fabricated to falsely implicate individuals. He questions the credibility of Section 164 Cr.P.C., and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., statements, suggesting they are used to intimidate and falsely accuse. The petitioner maintains his innocence, alleging a politically motivated prosecution; after the YSRCP came to power, no new distillery licenses were granted, and rates set before 2019 remained; the excise policy must be approved by the Cabinet, with the relevant minister and official machinery responsible for its implementation, and as an MP, he had no involvement in this. The prosecution’s case relies on kickback allegations but lacks evidence of any loss to the state. Financial verification