The Supreme Court of India has granted anticipatory bail to a Vijayawada-based businessman accused of supplying bottles and caps allegedly used in the manufacture of spurious liquor in Andhra Pradesh. The court set aside a prior order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had refused the relief.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by the businessman, holding that the circumstances of the case justified protection from arrest.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The case arises from Crime No. 171 of 2025 registered at Bhavanipuram Prohibition and Excise Police Station in NTR District under various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
According to the prosecution, excise officials conducted a raid on October 6, 2025, at Ravi Khirana General Stores in Ibrahimpatnam town and a nearby godown. During the operation, authorities seized:
- 7,800 bottles of alleged spurious liquor
- 3,325 litres of liquor blend
- Bottling and capping machinery
Later the same day, another raid was conducted at A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar, where investigators allegedly found heavy equipment used for producing counterfeit liquor. The authorities suspected that spirit was mixed with water, caramel, and flavoring agents to produce fake versions of popular brands such as Old Admiral Brandy and Kerala Malt Whiskey.
During interrogation of the main accused, investigators claimed that empty plastic bottles and caps required for bottling the liquor were sourced through the appellant, a businessman dealing in plastic and aluminium bottle caps.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
Allegations Against the Appellant
The prosecution alleged that the businessman supplied plastic bottles and caps bearing government labels and logos of liquor brands to the individuals running the illegal liquor operation.
Witnesses reportedly told investigators that the appellant provided materials required for bottling counterfeit liquor. Investigators also cited phone records showing about 400 calls between the appellant and another accused who allegedly coordinated the supply chain for fake bottles and caps. Financial transactions between the appellant and one of the co-accused were also mentioned during the investigation.
Based on these developments, the police added the appellant as Accused No. 20 in the FIR.
Arguments Before the Court
Defence Submissions
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the businessman was not named in the original FIR and that there was confusion about his identity.
It was also argued that:
- No raid was conducted at the appellant’s business premises.
- The alleged illegal manufacturing sites did not belong to him.
- He had cooperated with the investigation after the Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest on January 6, 2026.
The defence further pointed out that the appellant had already been implicated in two similar criminal cases earlier and had been arrested and released on bail in those matters. According to the defence, custodial interrogation in the present case was therefore unnecessary.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
Prosecution’s Stand
Opposing the plea, the state argued that the case involved large-scale production of spurious liquor and required thorough investigation.
The prosecution maintained that witness statements and call records linked the appellant to the supply of bottles, caps, and packaging material used in manufacturing counterfeit liquor. It also argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy and trace the financial trail behind the illegal operation.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court noted several factors in favour of the appellant.
The bench observed that the businessman was not initially named in the FIR and that no raid had been conducted at his place of business. The raids were carried out at other premises, including Ravi Khirana General Stores and A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar, neither of which belonged to the appellant.
The court also noted that the appellant had complied with the interim protection granted earlier and had appeared before the investigating officer on multiple dates.
“The appellant was not initially named in the FIR and no raid was ever conducted at his place of business,” the bench observed while considering the case.
It further noted that there was no allegation that the appellant had misused the liberty granted to him during the period of interim protection.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Termination of Power Board Worker Over Matric Certificate from
Decision of the Court
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated December 5, 2025.
The court directed that in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 171 of 2025, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions imposed by the arresting officer or the trial court.
The bench also directed that the appellant must cooperate with the investigation and the trial proceedings and must not attempt to influence witnesses. Pending applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Mutta vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 20419 of 2025)
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
