The Office of Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra hereby confirms that the Hon’ble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, has dismissed the regular bail petitions filed by seven accused in Crime No. 21 of 2024, of the ongoing investigation into large-scale liquor procurement irregularities in Andhra Pradesh.

In a series of detailed and reasoned orders, the Hon’ble Court has uniformly upheld the prosecution’s submissions as advanced by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, affirming the principles governing successive bail, the gravity of economic offences, and the prosecution’s continuing statutory right to investigate under law.

Upholding the Mandate for Continued Custody

The Court’s ruling aligns with the prosecution’s strenuous arguments against the grant of bail, particularly in the context of sophisticated financial crimes. This office submits that the following established legal principles were correctly upheld:

• No Material Change in Circumstances: The Court rightly disregarded the contention that the mere filing of a charge sheet constitutes a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the grant of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Judicial discretion in bail matters necessitates a substantive, not merely formal, shift in the facts.

• The Nexus of Economic Offences: The nature of the alleged offences, which involve large-scale financial fraud and alleged misuse of public office, places them squarely within the category of Economic Offences. The settled jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dictates that such crimes constitute a class apart, impacting the national economy and public morale, thus demanding a more stringent approach towards bail applications.

• Investigative Integrity and Further Investigation: The Court further endorsed the prosecution’s prerogative to conduct further investigation even after filing of charge sheets, observing that such continuation is statutorily permissible and necessary, given the discovery of new financial and digital evidence, including foreign transactions and untraced proceeds of crime. This directly aligns with Mr Luthra’s argument that the prosecution’s investigative authority under Section 173(8) CrPC remains intact and cannot be curtailed.

• Evidence-Based Rejection of Bail: The Court acknowledged the comprehensive evidence presented by the prosecution, including forensic reports, communication records, financial trails, and corroborative witness statements, noting that such scientific and testimonial material prima facie establishes the gravity of the offences. This observation underscores that the Court found merit in the factual matrix presented by Mr Luthra, reinforcing the credibility and diligence of the prosecution’s case.

• Medical Grounds Pleas Rejected: In cases where interim medical bail was sought, the Hon’ble Court, relying on prosecution assurances of escorted medical care, held that no life-threatening condition existed to warrant release. The orders reflect a balanced judicial approach, protecting both the rights of the accused and the integrity of the ongoing investigation, as urged by Mr Luthra.

The State of the Case and Due Process

Contrary to speculative reports, the proceedings before the Hon’ble ACB Court were conducted with utmost decorum and seriousness. The reasoning across the bail orders clearly shows the Court’s appreciation of Mr Luthra’s submissions, both on law and evidence, and endorses the prosecution’s disciplined, fact-driven approach to a case of national financial significance.

These consistent judicial findings validate the prosecution’s stand led by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, reaffirming that no accused has shown any material change in circumstance, and that continued custody is necessary in the interests of justice, investigation, and public trust.

— Office of Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra