The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to accept the bail plea of Keshireddy Rajasekhar Reddy alias Raj Keshireddy, the main accused in the case. ₹3,500 crore worth of liquor was swindled in Andhra Pradesh during the previous regime of the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP).
SC rejects bail plea of prime accused in Andhra’s Rs 3.5 thousand crore liquor fraud caseA division bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, described Raj Kesireddy as the chief architect of the liquor scam and said there was a criminal nexus between bureaucrats and political leaders in the case.
The CJI made it clear that the Supreme Court would neither grant bail nor issue a notice in the case. He observed that such massive corruption is not possible without criminal nexus between bureaucrats and political leaders.
The Special Investigation Team of the Andhra Pradesh Police, in its chargesheet, has accused Raj Keshireddy, former IT advisor to the Jagan Mohan Reddy government, as the prime accused, who played a central role in the fraud. He was arrested in April 2025.
Other important names in the chargesheet include YSRCP MP Peddireddy Mithun Reddy, former YSRCP general secretary V Vijayasai Reddy, retired IAS officer K Dhanunjaya Reddy, who served as secretary in the chief minister’s office, former chief minister’s officer on special duty (OSD) P Krishna Mohan Reddy, state wholetime director Bivin Bharat Pradesh and former state director Govarla. Corporation Limited (APSBCL) Managing Director D Vasudev Reddy, APSBCL Special Officer Satya Prasad and SPY Agro Industries former Director Sajjala Sridhar Reddy.
More Read
According to the chargesheet, the total amount of the alleged liquor fraud was embezzled in the form of kickbacks. ₹3,570.87 crores.
It includes classification of syndicates, year-wise breakdown of bribes collected, method of determining commission per brand of liquor and details of how the conspiracy was carried out.
Senior advocate Ranjith Kumar, appearing for Keshireddy, brought to the notice of the court that his client was only an adviser to the government and the alleged liquor played no role.
“Besides, he has already been in jail for the last 10 months and therefore deserves regular bail,” he argued.
The CJI, however, dismissed this argument and said that the volume of liquor fraud was too large.
He said, “He was not just an adviser but the architect of the whole fraud. It is not a small crime and there is nothing wrong if the main accused stays in jail for some more time.”
The apex court allowed the petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the plea and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court or the High Court at the appropriate level.
