In Brief
This case concerns the denial of anticipatory bail to two senior retired officials accused of misappropriation in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) liquor scam. The officials allegedly manipulated the order-for-supply system to suppress established brands (causing Rs. 3,200 crore in kickbacks) and promote favoured brands. The Supreme Court declined anticipatory bail, holding that before relying on a Section 161 police statement at the bail stage, courts must first determine whether the person is a witness or an accused. The Court clarified that confessional statements of an accused cannot be used at bail stage and Section 30 of the Evidence Act applies only at trial with joint trial and due proof. Political vendetta alone cannot override prima facie evidence.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.