Supreme Court grants regular bail to Avinash Reddy in liquor scam case

Vijayawada: The Supreme Court on Friday granted regular bail to Muppidi Avinash Reddy, an accused (A-7) in the alleged Rs 3,200 crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam case. Taking note of the compliance with its earlier order and completion of custodial interrogation, the SC granted regular bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial court and submission of sureties.Avinash Reddy challenged AP high court's Jan 29 order declining him anticipatory bail in a case registered by the special investigation team (SIT) led by the CID police at Mangalagiri in Sept 2024. The FIR invokes offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120B read with Sections 34 and 37 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The allegations relate to large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy, including alleged manipulation in the allocation of orders for supply and preferential treatment to select liquor brands. Avinash Reddy, brother of a co-accused, is alleged to have generated and transferred kickbacks and other proceeds of crime.Earlier, the Supreme Court refused interim protection from arrest and directed the appellant to return to India and surrender before the investigating officer, after noting that a lookout circular had been issued against him. In compliance with the court's directions, Avinash Reddy returned to India and surrendered on Feb 26, following which he was remanded in judicial custody and subjected to custodial interrogation.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, having considered his compliance with the court's directions, the fact that some of the co-accused had been granted bail, and the completion of custodial interrogation, granted him regular bail by moulding his plea for anticipatory bail as he had already surrendered and was remanded.The apex court asked the trial court to impose stringent conditions for the bail as it deems appropriate. The court clarified that the order was passed in view of the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for grant of bail in other matters.