The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanjay

1
2025 INSC 973
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3301 OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.4354 OF 2025]
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
N. SANJAY RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’)
along with Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant-
State and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr.
Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.01.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.08.14
17:31:14 IST
Reason:
1
Criminal Petition No.58 of 2025 filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
1
‘ 482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest .—(1) When any
person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having commit-
ted a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a

2
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by the respondent, whereby he
was granted anticipatory bail.
BRIEF FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
4. The respondent, an officer borne on the Indian Police Service, at the
relevant point in time to which the First Information Report (‘FIR’) viz .
2
Cr.No.05/RCO-CIU-ACB/2024 at PS ACB, CIU, Vijayawada is material,
was posted as Additional Director General of Police, Criminal
Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh and/or Director General,
Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services. Various
allegations are levelled against the respondent/accused no.1. It is alleged
that the respondent, inter alios , manipulated tender(s) for Development

3
and Maintenance of AGNI-NOC Web Portal, Mobile App and supply of
hardware in violation of the prescribed procedures resulting in
misappropriation of public funds, and; allegedly signed an Agreement
(‘Agreement’) with a private party (‘contractor’) for holding awareness
camps for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community members in
various District Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
5. Be it noted, we have reproduced only a portion of the allegations, for
illustrative purposes.
6. The State avers that the above amounted to impropriety/misconduct
on the part of the respondent falling within the net of corruption and
criminality.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
7. Learned ASG appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the
respondent was the last/final authority for the approval in terms of the
tender floated for holding the awareness camps. Pursuant to the process
initiated, private parties were called to enter into an agreement, with the
respondent signing the same on behalf of the State. Insofar as the

4
Agreement is concerned, it is alleged that though the same was entered
into between the parties on 30.01.2024, with the respondent as the
signatory on behalf of the State, yet on the very same day, bills/invoices
presented by a contractor/accused no.2 were approved for the entire
amount, as per the Agreement, without any verification of work done.
8. It was further submitted that another allegation against the
respondent is of certain laptops being purchased under an agreement
dated 15.02.2023, without any tender via e-procurement. It is alleged that
within a week, the payment for the said purchase was released. This is
stated to be violative of a Memorandum dated 20.09.2013 issued by the
Finance Department, mandating e-platform procurements alone for
purchases exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).
9. Insofar as the transaction concerning the awareness camps is
concerned, it is alleged that the Agreement clearly stipulated that the
awareness camps were to be held prospectively, for which there was a
provision to make payments under various heads such as rent, furniture,
videography, food and workshop materials. It was contended that, in
reality, nothing was done by the contractor, since out of the 25 workshops
purportedly conducted, 24 were held in Government premises without
rent, and the one was held in a private premises, whose owner had given

5
a statement that rent was neither charged nor received for holding the
awareness camp. It was further submitted that even the persons who
conducted such workshops were departmental persons and no food was
served, except in a few workshops, and refreshments were arranged
departmentally.
10. Learned ASG submitted that under such circumstances, where
payments were approved and permitted to be drawn without any
verification/confirmation with regard to the actual execution of work,
serious doubts are raised concerning the genuineness of the transaction
and the bona fides of the persons involved.
11. It was submitted that it cannot be presumed that the respondent,
who was holding a senior position in the Government, would have
overlooked/forgotten the fact that he had signed the Agreement with the
contractor on a particular day and on the very same day, he also
approved the drawal of the entire amount, after having accepted that
whatever was required to be done had already been performed.
12. Learned ASG also submitted that it was found, upon enquiry, that
the number of persons stated to have attended the workshops, being
uniformly 350 across all six districts, was not supported by any credible

6
evidence.
13. It was further submitted that another surprising aspect in the matter
was that though only 5% of the contract value was required to be
furnished by way of a Bank Guarantee, amounting to approximately
Rs.2,97,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand), on the very
same day, an application for waiver of the said requirement was moved
which was also granted without any justification.
14. It was submitted that the State was pursuing the matter diligently,
and the appeal deserved to be allowed so that the investigation could
proceed without impediment. Learned ASG also submitted that a lengthy
and detailed order being passed for granting anticipatory bail was not
proper, as definite findings have been given on various aspects, which
would ultimately prejudice the mind of both the Investigating Agency as
also the Court before which, if at all, the trial eventually proceeds.
15. Summing up, learned ASG submitted that in the totality of the
picture emerging, the respondent, being the most key factor and the
highest official at whose level all official file processing stops, must be
held accountable for his conduct. It was submitted that unless the
respondent is subjected to custodial interrogation, his acts of omissions or

7
commissions could not be established. Prayer was made to allow the
appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
16. Per contra , Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent submitted that the respondent’s role, due to him being the top-
most official, was limited to taking a decision based on the material placed
before him on file, and the respondent was not supposed to actually verify
each and every aspect of the proposal(s) placed before him.
17. It was further contended that at the relevant point, there was no
record of any complaint being received from any quarter that there had
been any deficiency in service and/or violation of the contractual terms
which could indicate serious lapse or criminality being attached to the
respondent’s conduct. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of the
Court to various documents to indicate that later on, verification had been
done and ultimately, the payments were released only thereafter, on
04.06.2024.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent is presently
under suspension and is being targeted because of the position he held

8
during the previous regime after the change of Government, and there is
a clear-cut bias against him. It was further contended that whatever has
transpired or alleged to have transpired, the entire records thereto are in
the custody of the authorities. It was urged that the respondent has
always expressed his willingness to cooperate in the investigation, and
there is no allegation that he has been called upon yet refused to
cooperate. Thus, it was canvassed that custodial interrogation is
absolutely not required and not justified in the facts and circumstances.
Replying to the learned ASG’s contention of the Impugned Order being
lengthy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same cannot be used
as a ground to assail it. He argued that it was in the public interest for the
learned Single Judge to disclose reasons, enabling the aggrieved party to
decide whether to avail remedies available under the Constitution or law.
Thus, the learned Single Judge, who has threadbare given his mind and
reasoning, on such score cannot be faulted. It was urged that the
prosecution has not been able to meet the standards required to rebut the
observations made in the Order impugned.
19. It was also submitted that if the State was actually serious, it should
proceed to conclude the investigation/enquiry at its end and then trust the
Court to bring matters to their logical conclusion. However, instead of
doing so, the State appears intent on securing the respondent’s custody

9
by any means, which would be unjustified looking at the background of
the factual position. It was advanced that the instant appeal merited
dismissal.
DECISION:
20. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the entire controversy.
21. To be fair to Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, it
is true that custodial interrogation is considered a last resort, to be
adopted when the investigation is impeded by deliberate lack of
cooperation or by factors which militate against upholding the law, or
against public interest. However, for this Court, and in the emerging
factual background, the consideration is not limited to whether a person is
merely required for custodial interrogation. The larger issue that comes to
the fore is whether any person, no matter how high the office he holds, is
to be treated on an equal footing by law, like a common citizen.
22. However, that being said, to clarify the position in law, interference
in a matter where a person comes before the Court seeking anticipatory
bail does not, and should not, automatically lead to the presumption that
custody would be required and he/she would be arrested. That is the

10
discretion of the Investigating Agency, depending on the circumstances
and the conduct of the accused. The Investigating Agency is obliged to
take an objective view on the requirement of custody of an accused
without any bias, ill-will, or any other extraneous consideration and purely
based on material.
23. We may pause here and note the response of Mr. Sibal, learned
Senior Counsel, at this stage, that, practically speaking, all these high
ideals and notions of justice are not adhered to and the stark reality is that
the Investigating Agency would go on to effect arrest. We refrain from
commenting thereon in this matter and reserve our opinion for an
appropriate case.
24. The High Court has premised its analysis as under:
‘ 17. …Merely because there are certain procedural violations,
the petitioner cannot be made liable therefor. … Merely
because the amounts have been released in favour of
companies for the works completed by them, it would not
come within the purview of the offence punishable under
Section 409 IPC.
xxx
20. …On a perusal of the entire material on record, this Court
is of the opinion that there are certain procedural violations in
respect of monies that have been released in favour of the
companies by verifying the progress of work done by the
companies. It is for those officers concerned to look into the
aspects and submit a report to the Head of the Institution.
The Head of the Institution, being the Supervisory Authority,
would not in any way go into each and every aspect in detail

11
in order to release funds in favour of the companies.
21. … The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the
accused, being a public servant or a banker, was entrusted
with the property which he is duty bound to account for, and
that he committed criminal breach of trust.
xxx
26. … The petitioner is under suspension since June, 2024
and question of tampering with the evidence by him would
not arise at all. When the entire material pertaining to the
alleged transactions has been seized, question of custodial
interrogation to elicit more information, would not arise. It is
pertinent to mention here that if the petitioner is arrested and
if the prosecution is not able to prove the accusation of
misappropriation and funds that were converted for his
personal use, as alleged, reputation of the petitioner will be
mollified.
xxx
28. … question of he fleeing away is remote. There is
absolutely no flight risk. He has got fixed abode. He is aged
about 57 years. The material filed along with the petition
shows that petitioner is a 45 cardiac patient, diagnosed with
coronary artery disease, specifically triple vessel disease,
and he underwent a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in
July, 2023, and considering the severity, he requires
continuous follow up with his physician to monitor his
recovery and overall health. … ’
25. The High Court also relied on the judgment in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694 and
examined whether the ingredients of the offences alleged were made out
or not. The High Court has further proceeded to discuss and hold that the
ingredients of the offences alleged do not appear to have been made out.

12

cautioned against elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or
rendering findings basis the same when seized with the question of
considering whether or not to grant bail. Indeed, as held by us in State of
Haryana v Dharamraj , (2023) 17 SCC 510 :
‘ 11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be
exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by
this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and
not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on
its own facts and merits. … ’
(emphasis supplied)
27. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar C K , (2022) 17 SCC 391 , it
was held:

13

(emphasis supplied)
28. In P Krishna Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1157 , it was stated:
‘ 23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar
C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as a
proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not
required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail.
Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be
required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put
up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence,
the punishment provided in law for such offence etc.
24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial
interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a
prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for.
Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is
for the Court concerned to look into.
25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the
view that we should not come in the way of the investigating
agency at this point of time and the investigation should be
permitted to proceed further. ’
(emphasis supplied)
29. As such, on an overall conspectus and in the fitness of things, while
refraining from making detailed observations, lest the same prejudice

14
either side, at this prima facie stage, the Court is ad idem with the learned
ASG that the facts and allegations are not such which would enable the
grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent as has been done by the High
Court. Therefore, we are persuaded to interfere in the matter. The appeal,
accordingly, stands allowed; the Impugned Order is set aside, and the
anticipatory bail granted to the respondent stands quashed. For
completeness, we may note that in P Krishna Mohan Reddy ( supra ), the
Court also commented on political bias/vendetta but ultimately, in the facts
obtaining therein, did not grant relief on this count.
30. We would observe that the Investigating Agency should act in a
non-partisan manner, focusing on the actual merits of the case based on
proper factual aspects and records, and conclude the investigation at the
earliest. Needless to indicate, the present Order will have absolutely no
bearing on the merits of the case, which we have not delved into.
Consequently, everything is left open to be argued both on law and facts
before the appropriate forum.
31. After the Order was dictated, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent submitted that the respondent, being a senior and respectable
citizen, should not be unceremoniously arrested, and towards this, the
Court may show indulgence and grant some time to surrender.

15
32. The Court accedes to such request. In the event the respondent
surrenders before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and
prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in
accordance with law, without being prejudiced by observations, if any, in
the present Order. At the request of the learned ASG, we clarify that it
shall also be open for the prosecution to pray for custody for interrogation
of the respondent before the Trial Court. The Trial Court will consider the
prayers made by either side as per law, uninfluenced by the instant Order.
As an added measure, it is made clear that if the respondent be in
custody, due and appropriate care will be accorded to him by the State,
regard being had to his medical condition.
…………………........................J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………........................J.

16
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.14 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4354/2025
[Arising out of the Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 30-
01-2025 in CRLP No.58/2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amravati]
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PETITIONER
VERSUS
N. SANJAY RESPONDENT
[FOR ADMISSION]

DATE : 31-07-2025 This petition was called on for hearing and
decided today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner Mr. S V Raju, A.S.G.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AoR
Mr. A Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv.
Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv.

For Respondent Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Talib Mustafa, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AoR

UPON hearing Counsel, the Court passed the following
O R D E R
1. The Court granted leave and allowed the appeal in terms of
the Signed Reportable Order.
(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file.]