Spurious Liquor Case| Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Vijayawada Businessman Accused Of Supplying Bottle Caps

The Supreme Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an Andhra Pradesh businessman accused in a case involving the manufacture of spurious liquor, noting that he was not originally named in the FIR and that no raid was ever conducted at his business premises.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order dated December 5, 2025, and made absolute the interim protection from arrest granted earlier to appellant Manoj Kumar Mutta on January 6, 2026.

Court directed that if the appellant is arrested in connection with the FIR registered at Bhavanipuram Prohibition and Excise Police Station in NTR District, he should be released on anticipatory bail on conditions imposed either by the arresting officer or the trial court. The Bench also directed him to cooperate with the investigation and trial and not influence witnesses.

Mutta runs a business in Vijayawada dealing with the manufacture of plastic and aluminium bottle caps through his establishment, ‘Sha Misrimal Hirachand Empty Glass Bottles Wholesale’, which is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act.

The case arose after authorities seized 7,800 bottles of spurious liquor, 3,325 litres of spurious liquor blend, and bottling and capping machinery during a raid. According to the prosecution, the plastic bottles and caps used for bottling the liquor had been procured through the appellant. He was later added as accused number 20 in the FIR on October 30, 2025.

Appearing for the appellant, counsel argued that Mutta was not named in the original FIR and that there was confusion regarding his identity. It was also argued that the prosecution’s case was contradictory because no raid was carried out at his business premises on October 6, 2025, and he had no connection with A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar, where raids were conducted. The defence further claimed that the offences alleged in the FIR were not made out against him.

The appellant also informed the Court that after receiving interim protection from arrest, he appeared before the investigating officer and fully cooperated with the investigation.

It was further submitted that he had been implicated in two other cases registered in quick succession on similar allegations, but in both instances he was arrested, remanded, and later granted bail.

Opposing the plea, the state argued that the case involved large-scale manufacture of fake liquor brands such as Old Admiral Brandy and Kerala Malt Whiskey. The prosecution claimed that witness statements showed the appellant had supplied empty plastic bottles, cardboard boxes, and caps bearing liquor company logos and government labels for use in manufacturing spurious liquor. The state also argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy and money trail behind the illegal liquor network in Andhra Pradesh.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court said it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

“The appellant was not initially named in the FIR and no raid was ever conducted at his place of business. Admittedly, the raid was conducted at Ravi Khirana General Stores and thereafter at A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar, both of which do not belong to the appellant,” the Bench observed.

Court also noted that the appellant had already been made an accused in two earlier criminal cases where he had been arrested and later released on bail.

“In the present case, he has been granted interim protection from arrest by this court vide order dated 6.1.2026 and he has appeared before the Investigating Officer. There is no allegation that the appellant has misused the liberty granted,” the Bench added.

Also Read| Illicit Liquor Sale Must Be 'In Presenti' To Be Considered As An Offence Under Kerala Abkari Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Mutta vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria

Date of Judgment: March 10, 2026