Political vendetta alone not ground for anticipatory bail unless case totally frivolous: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to two former bureaucrats in the alleged multi-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor policy scam case, ruling that the allegation of political vendetta in itself would not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the accused [P Krishna Mohan vs State of AP]..A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that when two rival political parties "are at war", there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the litigation, particularly the criminal prosecution."However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State," the Court added.However, it clarified that when the court prima facie is convinced that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, it may consider the element of political vendetta for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. "The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta," the Court said..In the present case, it is alleged that the bureaucrats had favoured certain select liquor brands such as Adan and Leela over well-established brands like Pernod Ricard and McDowell and received kickbacks for the same.Former government officials P Krishna Mohan Reddy and K Dhananjaya Reddy, accused in the alleged ₹3,200 crore liquor scam, had earlier been denied pre-arrest bail by Andhra Pradesh High Court. .Challenging the denial of relief, they argued before the top court that the case was politically motivated and lacked credible prosecutorial foundation. It was also submitted that they had been cooperating with the investigation agency..However, the top court highlighted the value of custodial interrogation in criminal investigations, particularly corruption cases involving influential persons. "In corruption cases concerning influential persons, effective interrogation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which are likely to be concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such condition would reduce to a mere ritual," the Court stated. .On the submission that the accused have been cooperating with the probe agency, the Court said,"The petitioners might have been cooperating with the investigation and they might have been interrogated also by the investigating agency so far but, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that by grant of anticipatory bail, we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it wants custodial interrogation."Thus, the Court denied relief to the accused. However, it also warned the probe agency against using coercion or third-degree methods during interrogation of the accused."The investigating agency shall not adopt any third-degree methods or shall not coerce or exert any undue pressure or bring any undue influence on any of the witnesses or any of the co-accused to make statements that may suit the State. Tomorrow, if any complaint is made before the court in this context with some cogent material, be it the trial Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, the same shall be viewed very seriously.".Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, S Niranjan Reddy, S Nagamuthu and Siddhartha Dave appeared for the petitioners.Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Aggarwal and Sidharth Luthra represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]