Supreme Court Questions SIT Conduct in AP Liquor Transport Case
New Delhi/Vijayawada: The Supreme Court has questioned the manner in which the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is handling the Andhra Pradesh liquor transportation case involving Raj Kesireddy.
The court reportedly expressed serious reservations about the SIT’s approach to the investigation.
The matter came before the Supreme Court after the SIT challenged an Andhra Pradesh High Court order concerning Kesireddy’s arrest.
The High Court had declared the arrest and subsequent remand unsustainable. It had also directed that the investigation could continue, subject to the accused cooperating with the probe.
Supreme Court Questions SIT’s Investigation
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the SIT over its approach to the case.
The court raised questions about the need for custodial interrogation. It also questioned why the police were seeking custody without appearing adequately prepared for it.
The bench also questioned the overall progress of the investigation.
The court indicated that it would first examine the conduct of the SIT. Only after that would it consider the High Court’s judgment in detail.
The observations are significant because the investigation has been continuing for a considerable period.
Questions Over Production Warrant
The Supreme Court also raised questions over the SIT seeking a production warrant for Kesireddy.
Kesireddy was already in custody in connection with another proceeding. The court questioned the need for such a step when there was no immediate possibility of the accused absconding.
The bench also questioned the SIT’s subsequent request for custodial interrogation.
According to the arguments reported in the case, the SIT sought a production warrant and later sought police custody. However, questions arose over the agency’s preparedness to conduct the interrogation.
The court reportedly questioned whether this amounted to an excessive approach by the investigating agency.
High Court Had Declared Arrest Illegal
The controversy follows an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling on Kesireddy’s arrest.
The High Court held that the procedure followed by the SIT did not satisfy the legal requirements for arrest. It consequently quashed the remand order.
The court also examined the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest.
It held that merely reading out documents before the accused was produced before the court was not enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
The High Court, however, did not stop the investigation.
It allowed the SIT to continue its probe while directing the accused to cooperate with the investigation.
Supreme Court Questions Need for Custodial Interrogation
The issue of custodial interrogation also came under scrutiny.
The court questioned the SIT’s approach to seeking police custody after obtaining a production warrant.
The bench reportedly pointed out the apparent inconsistency in seeking custodial interrogation while subsequently indicating that the police were not prepared for such custody.
The court also observed that a production warrant effectively enables the investigating agency to bring an accused before the jurisdictional court.
The judges questioned why such a step was necessary when the accused was already in custody.
Case Has Been Under Investigation for Years
The liquor transportation case is part of a wider investigation into alleged irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).
The SIT has alleged financial losses to the state exchequer through irregularities in liquor transportation contracts.
The investigation has also involved several accused persons and has expanded into related financial investigations.
In July 2026, the SIT obtained a prisoner transit warrant and brought Kesireddy, former APSBCL managing director D. Vasudeva Reddy and another accused from Chanchalguda Central Jail to Vijayawada for questioning.
The Enforcement Directorate has separately been investigating alleged money laundering linked to the liquor transportation case. It has also reported searches and seizure of assets and documents during its probe.
Supreme Court Issues Notice
The respondents told the Supreme Court that they would file their counter in the matter.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued notice and sought their response.
The court has adjourned the matter for further hearing.
The next hearing is expected to determine how the Supreme Court proceeds with the SIT’s challenge to the High Court order.
For now, the key issue before the court is not the merits of the wider liquor case alone.
The focus is also on whether the SIT followed the required legal procedure while seeking custody and dealing with Kesireddy’s arrest.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will examine the SIT’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding the production warrant and custody request.
It will then consider the legal implications of the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order.
The wider investigation into the alleged liquor transportation irregularities is expected to continue separately.
SEO Keywords: Andhra Pradesh liquor case, Raj Kesireddy, Raj Kesireddy liquor case, Supreme Court, AP High Court, SIT investigation, liquor transport case, Andhra Pradesh SIT, production warrant, custodial interrogation, Kesireddy arrest, AP liquor scam
Suggested SEO Title: Supreme Court Questions SIT Conduct in Raj Kesireddy Liquor Transport Case
Meta Description: Supreme Court questions the SIT’s approach in the Raj Kesireddy liquor transport case after the AP High Court declared his arrest illegal.
Suggested URL Slug: "supreme-court-questions-sit-raj-kesireddy-liquor-transport-case"