A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi granted the relief
The Supreme Court (SC) has granted regular bail to Muppidi Avinash Reddy, an accused in the multi-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor policy scam. The case involves alleged irregularities and kickbacks between 2019 and 2024.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi provided the relief. Reddy was represented by senior advocate Siddharth Dave. For the state of Andhra Pradesh, advocate Siddharth Luthra represented the case, as per the reports. The court noted that some of the co-accused of the appellant have also been granted bail, owing to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
“Taking into consideration the appellant’s compliance with the interim direction of this Court, the fact that he has undertaken to abide by the law, and that he is willing to comply with all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court, however, 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,” the court order said.
The reports noted that the order highlighted that the appellant is the brother of a co-accused, and the allegations against him are of generating and transferring the kickbags and other proceeds of the crime. When the matter came up for hearing on 24 February 2026, the court declined to grant interim protection against arrest and directed the appellant to return to India and surrender before the investigating officer, whereupon his prayer for regular bail would be considered in accordance with law.
In compliance with the said order, the appellant returned to India and surrendered before the IO on 26 February 2026. He was initially remanded to judicial custody, and during the hearing on 12 March 2026, it was pointed out that police custody of the appellant had been sought for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the reports cited the court order. The court, however, clarified that this order shall not be considered a binding precedent for the grant of bail in other matters.
