The Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Andhra Pradesh police probing the liquor scam that allegedly took place during the regime of YSR Congress party has expressed displeasure over the special court for ACB cases in Vijayawada doing undue favour in granting bail to YSRCP MP P Mithun Reddy.
The SIT challenged the ACB court’s decision to grant bail to Mithun Reddy in the state high court.
Arguing for the SIT, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told the high court that the ACB court judge had followed “procedures not found in law” while granting bail to the accused in the liquor scam case.
Luthra argued that while the investigation is still underway, the ACB Court made several observations in its bail order suggesting that Mithun Reddy (A-4) is “innocent and honest.”
He said the court failed to consider crucial evidence showing that Mithun Reddy was a key conspirator in the liquor scam.
He pointed out that Mithun Reddy’s first bail plea was rejected by the ACB court on August 18, yet a second bail petition was filed within 10 days without any change in circumstances.
“It is a well-established legal principle that bail cannot be granted unless there is a change in circumstances after the first rejection. However, the ACB Court ignored this and granted bail,” he said.
The SIT counsel said during the first bail hearing, the SIT had submitted all evidence — witness statements recorded under CrPC Sections 161 and 164, as well as Google Takeout and other digital evidence.
“But the same court held that statements under Section 161 cannot be treated as evidence proving Mithun Reddy’s involvement. It also failed to examine Section 164 statements identifying him as the kingpin,” Luthra submitted.
He warned that, based on this judgment, other accused might also seek bail on similar grounds. Hence, the SIT urged the high court to stay the implementation of several observations made by the ACB court in its bail order.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi of the high court noted that Mithun Reddy had already been released on bail and that notices must be issued to hear his version before proceeding further. The court issued notices accordingly.
It also took note of the contention that the ACB Court’s orders — granting default bail to accused Dhanunjaya Reddy (A-31), Krishnamohan Reddy (A-32), and Balaji Govindappa (A-33), while granting regular bail to Mithun Reddy — appeared contradictory.
The bench stated that a detailed inquiry would be conducted before delivering its decision and adjourned the hearing to October 9.