The Supreme Court has denied anticipatory bail to former IT Advisor to the previous YSRCP government, Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy alias Raj Kesireddy, in connection with the alleged manipulation of the liquor transportation tender process of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).

The Court has also denied anticipatory bail to former APSBCL Managing Director Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however said that the production warrant qua the petitioners be executed immediately, whereafter they may seek regular bail.

The bench was dealing with the petitioners' challenge to the High Court order of September 7 which denied them anticipatory bail. Senior Advocate V Giri represented Kessireddy Rajashekhar Reddy and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy.

To recap, Raj Kessireddy and Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging their arrest and remand in connection with the alleged liquor transportation scam. Raj Kessireddy was already in judicial custody in another case (lodged by ED) when the investigating agency sought his production in the present case.

The petitioners contended that their arrest pursuant to production warrants was illegal as the written grounds of arrest were not furnished either at the time of arrest or sufficiently before their production, in violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. They also alleged that the subsequent case was instituted to frustrate their earlier bail and perpetuate their custody.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were brought before the Special Court pursuant to judicial production orders and that the remand papers, including the grounds of arrest, were furnished before the remand proceedings. The State also relied upon the fact that the detailed remand report and case papers had been furnished upon arrival before the judicial remand enquiry.

The High Court held the petitioners' arrest and remand unsustainable, observing that merely reading out remand report, case record, order of arrest and grounds of arrest to an accused at the time of production before the Special Judge is not sufficient compliance of Article 22(1).

Subsequently, the investigating agency sought fresh production warrants. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.