AP Liquor Scam: SC Grants Regular Bail To Muppidi Avinash Reddy
The case involves alleged large-scale irregularities and a structured kickback network that operated between 2019 and 2024.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : March 20, 2026 at 6:42 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted regular bail to Muppidi Avinash Reddy, a key accused in the multi-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor policy scam. The case involves alleged large-scale irregularities and a structured kickback network that operated between 2019 and 2024.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra presented the state government's case.
When the state government counsel opposed granting relief to the petitioner, the bench orally observed that it is a case of ego satisfaction. Luthra said it is not ego satisfaction.
Luthra said he returned in terms of what he had committed to the apex court, and his police custody was granted. Luthra said he is currently in judicial custody and urged the bench to take up the matter in a week or ten days, stating he will try whatever is relevant for the appellant. Luthra said whatever investigation needs are, the court may allow them to be fulfilled.
Luthra argued that granting him relief in this case might impact other cases. "Give me till next Friday," pressed Luthra. However, the state's counsel could not convince the bench.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing the appellant, said he returned to India pursuant to his commitment and surrendered before the investigating authority on February 26, 2026.
The bench noted that the appellant has already undergone custodial interrogation and that some co-accused in the case have been granted bail. The bench was informed that seven people have been granted bail and five remain in custody.
"Taking into consideration that the appellant has complied with the interim direction of this court (to return to India and surrender before the investigating officer) and has undertaken to abide by law….all terms and conditions that may be imposed by trial court. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we allow this petition", said the CJI, while granting regular bail to the appellant.
While granting bail, the bench clarified that the order was passed under the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and should not be treated as a legal precedent. The apex court directed Reddy's release subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.
The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated January 29 2026, whereby the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined his prayer for anticipatory bail.
The allegations are that there were large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the excise policy and functioning of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited from 2019 to 2024. These irregularities included discrimination and manipulation of the allocation of orders for supply, giving preferential treatment to some brands at the cost of others. The entire episode has been captioned as the "Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam".
The appellant is the brother of a co-accused, and the allegations against him are of generating and transferring the 1 kickbacks and other proceeds of the crime. In short, the appellant apparently fled the country, but before doing so, he claims to have been in regular touch with the Investigating Officer (IO).
"Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, and instead of granting the relief of anticipatory bail, we mould the same for the grant of regular bail. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose stringent conditions for the same, as it may deem appropriate," said the apex court, in its order.
"It goes without saying that since the appellant has been released on bail by keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this order shall not be considered as a binding precedent for the purpose of the grant of bail in other matters," it said.
Read More
