The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard an appeal challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to cancel the default bail earlier granted to Balaji Govindappa, Director of Bharathi Cements, in the alleged ₹3,500-crore liquor scam linked to the previous YSR Congress regime.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the State of Andhra Pradesh and sought a counter-affidavit within 10 days, along with concrete suggestions on further proceedings. The Court also protected the petitioners from surrendering in the meantime, subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court.
CJI: ‘What purpose is served by keeping them in custody?’
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant questioned the necessity of continued incarceration, noting the enormity of the trial ahead.
“There are 400 witnesses now and that may eventually become 200. Even if we assume 100 witnesses, how long will you take? Many times in the issue of default bail, applications become infructuous if the court considers regular bail and comes to the conclusion that liberty can be granted without impacting fair trial,” the CJI observed.
The Bench made it clear that the Court did not wish to engage in “academic issues” unrelated to the practical progression of the case.
“You have to tell us what purpose will be achieved by keeping them in custody. We know one of them was a senior officer, and if you think there is a chance of influencing the witnesses, we can impose pre-emptive conditions,” the CJI added.
State assures expedited trial
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, informed the Court that complications arose earlier because the trial court had rejected the chargesheet.
“The trial court had thrown out my chargesheet which was a problem. Now the chargesheet is back, and we will try to expedite the trial,” Luthra said.
Court hints at considering regular bail under Article 142
The Bench signalled its inclination to explore broader powers under the Constitution to do complete justice.
“Assuming we invoke Article 142 and consider the prayer for granting regular bail…” the CJI remarked, hinting that a holistic approach may be taken rather than a narrow adjudication on default bail.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the High Court judgment also addressed the larger question of how an incomplete chargesheet affects the conduct of trial.
‘Section 482 CrPC is like a Brahmastra’
In a significant observation, CJI Kant underscored the expansive scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
“The power under Section 482 is like a Brahmastra. Whenever the Court thinks injustice has been done, it can intervene. It is a very wide concept. And when we talk of justice, we have to keep the rights of the victim before us as well,” the CJI said.
Next hearing
The matter will be listed after the State files its counter-affidavit. Until then, the petitioners will remain exempt from surrendering, provided they adhere to the conditions already in force.
The case relates to alleged large-scale corruption and irregularities in liquor trade during the previous YSR Congress government in Andhra Pradesh, with the Enforcement Directorate and state authorities conducting extensive investigations.
Read More: Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked on Mere 26AS Mismatch: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand
