Grant of Anticipatory Bail Where Accused Cooperated With Investigation and Lacks Direct Link to Offence Seizures

The appellant, a businessman dealing in bottle caps and glass bottles, challenged a High Court order dated December 5, 2025, which refused him anticipatory bail in Crime No. 171 of 2025.

The case involves a raid conducted on October 6, 2025, at the premises of other accused persons, uncovering 7,800 bottles of spurious liquor and manufacturing machinery.

The appellant was not initially named in the FIR but was added as Accused No. 20 after custodial interrogations of other accused suggested he supplied plastic bottles and caps with government labels.

Investigation further alleged 400 telephone calls between the appellant and Accused No. 23, alongside financial transactions.

The appellant had previously been granted interim protection by the Supreme Court on January 6, 2026, and had participated in the investigation.

Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the allegations of involvement in a spurious liquor manufacturing conspiracy.

Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation and his lack of initial mention in the FIR.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure/Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

It emphasized the necessity of balancing the state's interest in custodial interrogation for uncovering "larger conspiracies" against the individual's liberty when they have cooperated with the process and have not been linked to the primary crime scene.

The Court reasoned that the appellant deserved anticipatory bail because he was not initially named in the FIR and no raids were conducted at his specific place of business.

While the prosecution, represented by the ASG, argued that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the "money trail" and the manufacture of counterfeit brands, the Court noted that the raids occurred at locations—Ravi Khirana General Stores and A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar—that did not belong to the appellant.

Furthermore, the appellant had already appeared before the Investigating Officer on multiple dates following the interim protection order and there was no evidence that he had misused his liberty or failed to cooperate.

The Court found that while the charges were serious, the lack of direct connection to the seizure sites and his ongoing cooperation mitigated the need for arrest.

The Court made the interim protection absolute, directing that in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail subject to terms imposed by the Trial Court or arresting officer.

The holding was conditioned upon the appellant’s continued cooperation with the investigation and trial, and a mandate that he shall not influence witnesses.