Investigators Probing Cases Involving Public Funds Must Not Reveal Details Of Probe Unless Needed, Unsubstantiated Claims Can Damage Reputations: AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an Investigating Officer (IO), who is tasked with investigating matters involving public funds, should ensure that investigation details are not disclosed unless such disclosure is necessary for an investigation or for public interest at large.Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao held, “This court views that while the investigation agency claims to be investigating an allegedly major liquor scam involving thousands of crores of rupees, keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns. It isn't easy to reconcile how such sensitive particulars of information could be made public at this initial stage of the investigation. The premature disclosure could significantly hinder the progress of the investigation, as it may alert those involved in the scam, allowing them to cover their tracks or alter their actions in response to the information.""This court views that if the particulars of the investigation, those revealed during the early stages, are not adequately substantiated or are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, it could severely damage the reputations of the individuals who have been named, and they may be portrayed as being involved in the scam, even though the investigation is still in its preliminary phase, and no conclusive material has been established against them,” he added.BackgroundThe Court was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by P V Mudhun Reddy, a Member of Parliament representing the Rajampet constituency, seeking anticipatory bail in relation to offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (”IPC”).Initially, a complaint was filed outlining concerns regarding irregularities and corruption in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) from October 2019 to March 2024. Later, the Committee found irregularities in the form of- (i) suppression of established popular brands and unfair discrimination in the allocation of Order for Supply (OFS), (ii) preferential allocation of orders to certain new brands, and (iii) shifting of procurement system from an automated OFS system to a manual process leaving scope for manipulation. Considering the seriousness of the matter and the involvement of allegations of suppression of brands, unfair discrimination, preferential allocation, and other violations, the Committee recommended that an external specialised investigation agency be appointed to take further action.It was the case of the petitioner that the statements recorded under Section 164 and 161 of CrPC, though vague and unreliable, posed a risk of arrest. The petitioner alleged a politically motivated prosecution aimed at fabricating criminal cases against him and contended that allegations were made to intimidate and falsely accuse him and his family, who have a significant presence in the Chief Minister's home district. The petitioner asserted that his presence was elemental in the upcoming Lok Sabha session as he is the floor leader of YSRCP and there was no risk of him hindering the investigation or intimidating witnesses.Contrary to this, the Respondent State argued that the petitioner was neither named in the complaint nor shown as an accused and was not even summoned by the IO. Hence, it was argued that the anticipatory bail petition was premature.FindingsOn the date of the concluding arguments, the prosecution argued that the IO had concluded that the material collected as of that date was insufficient to array the petitioner as an accused and that there were no grounds warranting the petitioner's arrest. Under such circumstances, the Court observed that it was perplexing for the petitioner to argue that the IO had collected material against him that could form the basis for his arrest.In this regard, the Court stated further that,“…while filing a First Information Report is not a prerequisite for exercising power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the imminence of a likely arrest, based on a reasonable belief, must be demonstrated. Moreover, the apprehension of arrest must be grounded in concrete facts rather than vague or general allegations and be linked to a specific offence.”Additionally, with respect to the contention of the respondent that the IO was yet to identify the beneficiaries of an alleged loss of thousands of crores of rupees and was making all efforts to identify the same, the Court relied on the case on Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] and held,“…the power under Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked based on vague and general allegations, as doing so would lead to a surge in anticipatory bail applications. As no specific accusations have been made against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been named as an accused, he is not entitled to the anticipatory bail sought.”As there were no accusations against the petitioner...

Investigators Probing Cases Involving Public Funds Must Not Reveal Details Of Probe Unless Needed, Unsubstantiated Claims Can Damage Reputations: AP HC

Saahas Arora

Tags