Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Businessman Accused Of Supplying Bottles And Caps For Spurious Liquor

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of supplying plastic bottles, caps bearing government labels and cardboard boxes allegedly used for bottling spurious liquor. The Court noted that he was not initially named in the FIR and that no raid had been conducted at his place of business.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by Manoj Kumar Mutta and set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated December 5, 2025, refusing him anticipatory bail.

"we are inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail for the reason that the appellant was not initially named in the FIR and no raid was ever conducted at his place of business"

The case arose from an FIR registered at Bhavanipuram Prohibition and Excise Police Station in NTR District alleging illegal manufacture of counterfeit liquor brands such as Old Admiral Brandy and Kerala Malt Whiskey.

During raids conducted at Ravi Khirana General Stores in Ibrahimpatnam and a nearby godown, excise officials allegedly seized 7,800 bottles of spurious liquor, 3,325 litres of spurious liquor blend and bottling and capping machinery. A subsequent raid at A.N.R. Restaurant & Bar allegedly uncovered equipment used for blending spirit to produce counterfeit liquor.

During the investigation, Mutta was later added as an accused on allegations that he had supplied plastic bottles, caps bearing government labels, and cardboard boxes used for bottling the spurious liquor.

Before the Supreme Court, the he contended that he was not named in the FIR and that no search or raid had ever been conducted at his establishment. He further submitted that he had cooperated with the investigation after the Court granted interim protection from arrest and had appeared before the investigating officer on several occasions.

The Court noted that the raids were conducted at premises that did not belong to the appellant and recorded that he had appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to the interim protection granted earlier. The Court also observed that there was no allegation that he had misused the liberty granted.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and made the interim protection absolute, directing that in the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and not influencing witnesses.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar; Advocate Amit Pai; Advocate N. Ashwani Kumar; Advocate-on-Record Pankhuri Bhardwaj; Advocate Abhiyudaya Vats; Advocate Naresh Bakshi; Advocate Prasad Hegde.

For Respondents: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju; Advocate Prerna Singh; Advocate-on-Record Guntur Pramod Kumar; Advocate Shreeyash Uday Lalit; Advocate Dhruv Yadav; Advocate Hitarth Raja.