Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(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

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Patil Yugandhar Reddy, Siddharth Dave, O.Manohar Reddy, Shagufta Jahan Noor
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, Siddharth Aggarwal, M.Lakshmi Narayana

The court established that prolonged pre-trial detention, without the commencement of trial or significant progress, constitutes punitive imprisonment violative of Article 21, and that bail should generally be granted when investigation is complete and charge sheets are filed, unless specific grounds for tampering or evasion exist.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 34, 37 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1)(b), 13(2) - Regular bail - Prolonged pre-trial incarceration without trial commencement violates right to liberty under Article 21 - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Change in circumstances - Principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception reiterated.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in a case involving alleged large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy and the functioning of the state beverages corporation, leading to significant financial investigations.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation was completed, charge sheets were filed, and prolonged detention without trial is punitive. For the first petitioner, a substantial change in circumstances had occurred as a co-accused had surrendered and was granted bail. For the second petitioner, the material did not prima facie suggest necessity for continued detention in light of completed investigations.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail given the stage of the investigation and the right to a speedy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pre-trial detention should not be used as a tool for punishment, emphasizing that when an investigation is complete and the trial is unlikely to commence in the near future, continued incarceration violates Article 21 rights. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Result: Petitions allowed with conditions.

COMMON ORDER:

The instant Criminal Petitions under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹1 For short ‘BNSS’ 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, 1860²2 For short ‘IPC’ and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13 (1) (b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988³3 For short ‘PC Act’.

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.

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.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11045

Cases Referred (2)