Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred and quashed the anticipatory bail because the allegations amount to a prima facie case and custodial interrogation may be required.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to N. Sanjay, an IPS officer who was Additional Director General of Police, CID, and Director General of the State Disaster Response and Fire Services, alleging misappropriation of public funds through irregular tenders and contracts. The State argued that the allegations, involving sections of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, created a prima facie case that warranted custodial interrogation and precluded bail. The respondent contended that he merely approved decisions based on files, faced no evidence of personal gain, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The Supreme Court examined precedents on anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the existence of a prima facie case and the nature of the offence are decisive, and that lack of need for custodial interrogation alone cannot justify bail. Concluding that the allegations were serious and the High Court had erred, the Court set aside the anticipatory bail order, allowing the appeal and directing that the bail be quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent.
Whether the allegations against the respondent constitute a prima facie case under the relevant statutes.
Whether custodial interrogation is a necessary condition for granting anticipatory bail in this case.
Whether the respondent’s senior position affects the applicability of anticipatory bail standards.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 409, s. 420, s. 477A
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(a), s. 13(2), s. 7
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Headnote

2096 : 2025 INSC 973 The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay (Criminal Appeal No. 3301 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Pradesh and/or DG, Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services at the relevant time, alleging misappropriation of funds and various other irrgeularities – Anticipatory bail granted by High Court – Challenge to: Held: On facts, in view of the allegations made, the

Subjects

Anticipatory bailAnticipatory bail quashedMisappropriation of public fundsAdditional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Andhra PradeshDirector General, Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire ServicesCustodial interrogationSenior position in the Government

Judgment

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2096 : 2025 INSC 973

The State of Andhra Pradesh
v.
N. Sanjay
(Criminal Appeal No. 3301 of 2025)
31 July 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and
S.V.N. Bhatti JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the
respondent.

Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.482 –
Anticipatory bail – Grant of – When not proper – FIR was filed
against the respondent who was Additional Director General
of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh and/or DG, Andhra Pradesh
State Disaster Response and Fire Services at the relevant
time, alleging misappropriation of funds and various other
irrgeularities – Anticipatory bail granted by High Court –
Challenge to:
Held: On facts, in view of the allegations made, the respondent
is not entitled to the anticipatory bail – Impugned Order
set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to the respondent is
quashed. [Para 29]

Case Law Cited
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 15
SCR 201 : (2011) 1 SCC 694; Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote [1980] 3 SCR 15 : (1980) 2 SCC 559; Vilas Pandurang
Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2012] 8 SCR 270 : (2012) 8 SCC
795; Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat [2023] 4
SCR 239 : (2023) 17 SCC 521; State of Haryana v. Dharamraj
[2023] 11 SCR 705 : (2023) 17 SCC 510; Sumitha Pradeep v.
Arun Kumar C K [2022] 14 SCR 1012 : (2022) 17 SCC 391; P
Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1157 – referred to.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2097

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Anticipatory bail; Anticipatory bail quashed; Misappropriation
of public funds; Additional Director General of Police, Criminal
Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh; Director General,
Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services;
Custodial interrogation; Senior position in the Government.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3301 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2025 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No.58 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S V Raju, A.S.G., Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Guntur Pramod Kumar,
A Venkatesh, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Hitarth
Raja.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Kapil Sibal, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Singh, Talib
Mustafa, Harsh Srivastava, Anmol Aggarwal, Ms. Rupali Samuel,
Himanshu Tyagi, Dhiraj Abraham Philip.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’) along
with Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant-
State and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, along with
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.01.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra
2098 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.58 of 2025 filed under Section 4821
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by the
respondent, whereby he was granted anticipatory bail.

BRIEF FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
4. The respondent, an officer borne on the Indian Police Service, at the
relevant point in time to which the First Information Report (‘FIR’)
viz. Cr.No.05/RCO-CIU-ACB/20242 at PS ACB, CIU, Vijayawada is
material, was posted as Additional Director General of Police, Criminal
Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh and/or Director General,
Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services. Various
allegations are levelled against the respondent/accused no.1. It is
alleged that the respondent, inter alios, manipulated tender(s) for
Development and Maintenance of AGNI-NOC Web Portal, Mobile
App and supply of hardware in violation of the prescribed procedures
resulting in misappropriation of public funds, and; allegedly signed
an Agreement (‘Agreement’) with a private party (‘contractor’) for
holding awareness camps for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
community members in various District Headquarters in the State of

1 ‘482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.—(1) When any person has reason
to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if
it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include
such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit,
including—
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as
and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail
were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such
accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer
to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides
that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant
in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of
having committed an offence under Section 65 and sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.’
2 Under Sections 409, 420, 477A read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 13(1)(a) read with
13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2099

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

Andhra Pradesh on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. Be it noted, we have reproduced only a portion of the allegations,
for illustrative purposes.
6. The State avers that the above amounted to impropriety/misconduct
on the part of the respondent falling within the net of corruption and
criminality.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
7. Learned ASG appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the
respondent was the last/final authority for the approval in terms of
the tender floated for holding the awareness camps. Pursuant to
the process initiated, private parties were called to enter into an
agreement, with the respondent signing the same on behalf of the
State. Insofar as the Agreement is concerned, it is alleged that though
the same was entered into between the parties on 30.01.2024, with
the respondent as the signatory on behalf of the State, yet on the
very same day, bills/invoices presented by a contractor/accused no.2
were approved for the entire amount, as per the Agreement, without
any verification of work done.
8. It was further submitted that another allegation against the
respondent is of certain laptops being purchased under an
agreement dated 15.02.2023, without any tender via e-procurement.
It is alleged that within a week, the payment for the said purchase
was released. This is stated to be violative of a Memorandum
dated 20.09.2013 issued by the Finance Department, mandating
e-platform procurements alone for purchases exceeding
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).
9. Insofar as the transaction concerning the awareness camps is
concerned, it is alleged that the Agreement clearly stipulated
that the awareness camps were to be held prospectively, for
which there was a provision to make payments under various
heads such as rent, furniture, videography, food and workshop
materials. It was contended that, in reality, nothing was done
by the contractor, since out of the 25 workshops purportedly
conducted, 24 were held in Government premises without rent,
and the one was held in a private premises, whose owner had
given a statement that rent was neither charged nor received for
2100 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

holding the awareness camp. It was further submitted that even
the persons who conducted such workshops were departmental
persons and no food was served, except in a few workshops, and
refreshments were arranged departmentally.
10. Learned ASG submitted that under such circumstances, where
payments were approved and permitted to be drawn without any
verification/confirmation with regard to the actual execution of
work, serious doubts are raised concerning the genuineness of the
transaction and the bona fides of the persons involved.
11. It was submitted that it cannot be presumed that the respondent,
who was holding a senior position in the Government, would have
overlooked/forgotten the fact that he had signed the Agreement with
the contractor on a particular day and on the very same day, he also
approved the drawal of the entire amount, after having accepted
that whatever was required to be done had already been performed.
12. Learned ASG also submitted that it was found, upon enquiry, that
the number of persons stated to have attended the workshops,
being uniformly 350 across all six districts, was not supported by
any credible evidence.
13. It was further submitted that another surprising aspect in the matter
was that though only 5% of the contract value was required to be
furnished by way of a Bank Guarantee, amounting to approximately
Rs.2,97,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand), on the
very same day, an application for waiver of the said requirement was
moved which was also granted without any justification.
14. It was submitted that the State was pursuing the matter diligently,
and the appeal deserved to be allowed so that the investigation
could proceed without impediment. Learned ASG also submitted that
a lengthy and detailed order being passed for granting anticipatory
bail was not proper, as definite findings have been given on various
aspects, which would ultimately prejudice the mind of both the
Investigating Agency as also the Court before which, if at all, the
trial eventually proceeds.
15. Summing up, learned ASG submitted that in the totality of the
picture emerging, the respondent, being the most key factor and the
highest official at whose level all official file processing stops, must
be held accountable for his conduct. It was submitted that unless
the respondent is subjected to custodial interrogation, his acts of
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2101

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

omissions or commissions could not be established. Prayer was
made to allow the appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
16. Per contra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the respondent’s role, due to him being the top-most
official, was limited to taking a decision based on the material placed
before him on file, and the respondent was not supposed to actually
verify each and every aspect of the proposal(s) placed before him.
17. It was further contended that at the relevant point, there was no
record of any complaint being received from any quarter that there
had been any deficiency in service and/or violation of the contractual
terms which could indicate serious lapse or criminality being attached
to the respondent’s conduct. Learned Senior Counsel drew the
attention of the Court to various documents to indicate that later
on, verification had been done and ultimately, the payments were
released only thereafter, on 04.06.2024.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent is presently
under suspension and is being targeted because of the position he
held during the previous regime after the change of Government,
and there is a clear-cut bias against him. It was further contended
that whatever has transpired or alleged to have transpired, the
entire records thereto are in the custody of the authorities. It was
urged that the respondent has always expressed his willingness
to cooperate in the investigation, and there is no allegation that
he has been called upon yet refused to cooperate. Thus, it was
canvassed that custodial interrogation is absolutely not required
and not justified in the facts and circumstances. Replying to the
learned ASG’s contention of the Impugned Order being lengthy,
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same cannot be used
as a ground to assail it. He argued that it was in the public interest
for the learned Single Judge to disclose reasons, enabling the
aggrieved party to decide whether to avail remedies available under
the Constitution or law. Thus, the learned Single Judge, who has
threadbare given his mind and reasoning, on such score cannot
be faulted. It was urged that the prosecution has not been able
to meet the standards required to rebut the observations made in
the Order impugned.
2102 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

19. It was also submitted that if the State was actually serious, it should
proceed to conclude the investigation/enquiry at its end and then trust
the Court to bring matters to their logical conclusion. However, instead
of doing so, the State appears intent on securing the respondent’s
custody by any means, which would be unjustified looking at the
background of the factual position. It was advanced that the instant
appeal merited dismissal.

DECISION:
20. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the entire controversy.
21. To be fair to Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent,
it is true that custodial interrogation is considered a last resort, to
be adopted when the investigation is impeded by deliberate lack of
cooperation or by factors which militate against upholding the law, or
against public interest. However, for this Court, and in the emerging
factual background, the consideration is not limited to whether a
person is merely required for custodial interrogation. The larger
issue that comes to the fore is whether any person, no matter how
high the office he holds, is to be treated on an equal footing by law,
like a common citizen.
22. However, that being said, to clarify the position in law, interference in
a matter where a person comes before the Court seeking anticipatory
bail does not, and should not, automatically lead to the presumption
that custody would be required and he/she would be arrested. That
is the discretion of the Investigating Agency, depending on the
circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The Investigating
Agency is obliged to take an objective view on the requirement of
custody of an accused without any bias, ill-will, or any other extraneous
consideration and purely based on material.
23. We may pause here and note the response of Mr. Sibal, learned
Senior Counsel, at this stage, that, practically speaking, all these
high ideals and notions of justice are not adhered to and the stark
reality is that the Investigating Agency would go on to effect arrest.
We refrain from commenting thereon in this matter and reserve our
opinion for an appropriate case.
24. The High Court has premised its analysis as under:
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2103

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

‘17. …Merely because there are certain procedural
violations, the petitioner cannot be made liable therefor. …
Merely because the amounts have been released in favour
of companies for the works completed by them, it would
not come within the purview of the offence punishable
under Section 409 IPC.
xxx
20. …On a perusal of the entire material on record, this
Court is of the opinion that there are certain procedural
violations in respect of monies that have been released in
favour of the companies by verifying the progress of work
done by the companies. It is for those officers concerned
to look into the aspects and submit a report to the Head
of the Institution. The Head of the Institution, being the
Supervisory Authority, would not in any way go into each
and every aspect in detail in order to release funds in
favour of the companies.
21. … The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the
accused, being a public servant or a banker, was entrusted
with the property which he is duty bound to account for,
and that he committed criminal breach of trust.
xxx
26. … The petitioner is under suspension since June,
2024 and question of tampering with the evidence by him
would not arise at all. When the entire material pertaining
to the alleged transactions has been seized, question of
custodial interrogation to elicit more information, would not
arise. It is pertinent to mention here that if the petitioner
is arrested and if the prosecution is not able to prove
the accusation of misappropriation and funds that were
converted for his personal use, as alleged, reputation of
the petitioner will be mollified.
xxx
28. … question of he fleeing away is remote. There is
absolutely no flight risk. He has got fixed abode. He is aged
about 57 years. The material filed along with the petition
2104 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

shows that petitioner is a 45 cardiac patient, diagnosed
with coronary artery disease, specifically triple vessel
disease, and he underwent a coronary artery bypass graft
(CABG) in July, 2023, and considering the severity, he
requires continuous follow up with his physician to monitor
his recovery and overall health. …’
25. The High Court also relied on the judgment in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
and examined whether the ingredients of the offences alleged were
made out or not. The High Court has further proceeded to discuss
and hold that the ingredients of the offences alleged do not appear
to have been made out.
26. In a litany of pronouncements, from Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v
State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 to Atulbhai Vithalbhai
Bhanderi v State of Gujarat, (2023) 17 SCC 521, the Court
cautioned against elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or
rendering findings basis the same when seized with the question of
considering whether or not to grant bail. Indeed, as held by us in
State of Haryana v Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510:
‘11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to
be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated
by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative,
and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case
turns on its own facts and merits. …’
(emphasis supplied)

27. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar C K, (2022) 17 SCC 391, it
was held:
‘12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court
to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words,
the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised
its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused
in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the
order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2105

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many
anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation
is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted.
There appears to be a serious misconception of law that
if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the
prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to
grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one
of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other
grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory
bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial
interrogation of the accused may not be required, but
that does not mean that the prima facie case against the
accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should
be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing
that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against
the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should
be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is
not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground
to grant anticipatory bail.’
(emphasis supplied)

28. In P Krishna Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1157, it was stated:
‘23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar
C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as
a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is
not required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory
bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may
not be required the court is obliged to consider the entire
case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature
of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such
offence etc.
24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial
interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a
2106 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for.
Whether any case for police remand is made out or not,
it is for the Court concerned to look into.
25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the
view that we should not come in the way of the investigating
agency at this point of time and the investigation should
be permitted to proceed further.’
(emphasis supplied)

29. As such, on an overall conspectus and in the fitness of things, while
refraining from making detailed observations, lest the same prejudice
either side, at this prima facie stage, the Court is ad idem with the
learned ASG that the facts and allegations are not such which would
enable the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent as has been
done by the High Court. Therefore, we are persuaded to interfere in
the matter. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed; the Impugned
Order is set aside, and the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent
stands quashed. For completeness, we may note that in P Krishna
Mohan Reddy (supra), the Court also commented on political bias/
vendetta but ultimately, in the facts obtaining therein, did not grant
relief on this count.
30. We would observe that the Investigating Agency should act in a non-
partisan manner, focusing on the actual merits of the case based on
proper factual aspects and records, and conclude the investigation
at the earliest. Needless to indicate, the present Order will have
absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case, which we have not
delved into. Consequently, everything is left open to be argued both
on law and facts before the appropriate forum.
31. After the Order was dictated, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the respondent, being a senior and respectable citizen,
should not be unceremoniously arrested, and towards this, the Court
may show indulgence and grant some time to surrender.
32. The Court accedes to such request. In the event the respondent
surrenders before the Court concerned within four weeks from today
and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits and
in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by observations, if
any, in the present Order. At the request of the learned ASG, we clarify
that it shall also be open for the prosecution to pray for custody for
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2107

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay

interrogation of the respondent before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
will consider the prayers made by either side as per law, uninfluenced
by the instant Order. As an added measure, it is made clear that if the
respondent be in custody, due and appropriate care will be accorded
to him by the State, regard being had to his medical condition.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey