₹3,200 Crore Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Refuses Protection from Arrest to YSRCP MP Midhun Reddy

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan refused to entertain Reddy’s plea challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s July 15 order rejecting his anticipatory bail.

Despite repeated requests by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the MP, the Court declined to grant even a week's time for Reddy to surrender.

“We will not say anything,” the Bench remarked, effectively closing the matter.

Shortly after the order, officials confirmed that the SIT moved a Vijayawada court seeking an arrest warrant against Reddy, citing the urgency of custodial interrogation.

Reddy, who is facing a lookout circular (LOC) issued by the SIT on July 15 to prevent any attempt to flee the country, is accused of being a key conspirator in a large-scale excise scam involving alleged manipulation of procurement policies by the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) during the YSRCP regime (2019–2024).

The CID’s probe is based on a complaint by one Y Venkateswar Rao Srinivas, who alleged that certain new and spurious liquor brands were favoured in place of established ones, with kickbacks allegedly routed to individuals linked to the ruling party at the time. A five-member committee constituted by the APSBCL had also flagged irregularities, particularly the shift from a transparent online procurement system to a manual one.

Reddy’s name was added to the FIR on April 22, 2025. According to the CID, a large sum of money was transferred by a shell company under investigation to PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd., allegedly owned by Reddy’s relatives. Witness statements also purportedly indicate his active role in influencing procurement decisions.

Before the Supreme Court, Singhvi argued that the CID itself had earlier told the High Court that no incriminating material had been found against Reddy and that he had cooperated with the probe. He maintained that the arrest move was politically motivated.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that custodial interrogation was essential. Rohatgi also cited earlier rejections of anticipatory bail to co-accused, stating that the investigation was at a critical juncture.

Earlier, the Apex Court had granted interim protection to Reddy on the condition of cooperation, but sent the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court on July 15 denied him bail, observing prima facie evidence and calling for custodial interrogation to unearth the “conspiracy angle.”

With the Supreme Court now rejecting relief, the legal door stands open for the state to proceed with his arrest. The matter marks a significant development in what is emerging as a politically sensitive investigation.