E-Paper
Supreme Court denies relief from arrest to YSRCP MP Midhun Reddy
On July 15, the SIT issued a LOC against Reddy to stop him from leaving India and formed teams to track him down and search possible hideouts.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant protection from arrest to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) lawmaker PV Midhun Reddy in connection with the ₹3,200 crore Andhra Pradesh liquor case.
Facing a look out notice issued by the special investigation team (SIT) of the state’s Crime investigation Department (CID) –– probing allegations of corruption in the procurement carried out by the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL), Reddy requested the court for time to surrender, but the same was not entertained.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the plea filed by Reddy, who alleged that the attempt to arrest him in the case is clearly a “political ploy” as he had nothing to do with the liquor procurement policy of APSBCL during the YSRCP government in the state from 2019 to 2024. Reddy had approached the top court against the dismissal of his anticipatory bail plea by the Andhra Pradesh high court on July 15.
Hours after the Supreme Court order was delivered, the SIT filed a petition in a local court in Vijayawada seeking a warrant to arrest Reddy, officials aware of the matter said.
“The SIT is proceeding legally towards the arrest of the YSRCP MP. That is why, it has filed the petition in the Vijayawada court seeking the arrest warrant,” an official associated with the chief minister’s office (CMO) said on condition of anonymity.
On July 15, the SIT issued a lookout circular (LOC) against Reddy to pre-empt him from fleeing abroad. It also formed special teams to trace his whereabouts and conduct searches in locations where he is likely to be hiding, the official cited above said.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the MP along with advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, pointed out that on April 3, the Andhra Pradesh high court had recorded the submission of CID that no material has been found against the petitioner. Singhvi informed the court that Reddy has been cooperating with the investigation and questioned the need for his arrest in the case.
As the court was not inclined to entertain this argument, Singhvi requested the court for a week’s time to surrender.
“We will not say anything,” the bench remarked, closing the matter.
The state was represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who referred to two cases filed by the other accused whose anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the top court in May. Rohatgi said that the investigation was at a crucial stage and any interference will be detrimental to the probe.
The ₹3,200 crore liquor case involved alleged manipulation of excise policy to benefit certain liquor companies on payment of kickbacks.
The state took up the investigation into the matter based on a complaint by one Y Venkateswar Rao Srinivas, alleging irregularities in the functioning of the APSBCL between October 2019 and March 2024. Srinivas alleged that purchase orders for new and spurious liquor brands were made and some of these brands were produced by private distilleries in which YSRCP leaders were partners. He further alleged that kickbacks were paid for not buying stock from popular liquor brands.
The excise department and APSBCL had formed a five-member committee to investigate the complaint that found clear suppression of the established popular brands and preferential allocation to certain new brands in violation of the existing norms.
The committee flagged a major flaw by pointing out that the procurement system, which used to be a transparent online system, was shifted to the manual process giving, scope for manipulation that compromised the integrity of the process.
Based on this report, the state government recommended a specialised investigation in the matter by CID. A first information report (FIR) was registered by CID on September 23, 2024 under offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 409, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Reddy was added as an accused on April 22, 2025.
Following this, Reddy had approached the top court for protection. Though initially, he was granted protection from arrest on the condition that he joins investigation, the top court on May 13 sent the matter back to the high court for considering Reddy’s bail plea on merits which led to the order under challenge.
The high court, on July 15, rejected Reddy’s anticipatory bail plea. Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao, in his order, observed that based on the evidence collected by the SIT during the investigation, there is prima facie indication of Reddy in the case.
The judge also agreed with the contention of the SIT that Reddy must be taken into custody and interrogated to uncover the conspiracy angle behind the implementation of the excise policy. The YSRCP MP was alleged to be a key conspirator in the case as the SIT found a large amount of money transferred by one of the alleged shell companies under investigation to PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by Reddy’s relatives. The SIT also recorded evidence of certain witnesses who informed them about the role played in the case by him.
