ORDER : T Mallikarjuna Rao, J. 1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ' BNSS '), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.470/2024 of Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi District. 2. A case has been registered against the accused and others for the offence punishable under Sections 274 , 275, 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 299 r/w 49 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and sections 51 & 59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act (for short, ‘FSSA’). 3. The prosecution's case concerns charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust by a merchant, and causing wrongful loss to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) with a dishonest and common intention. It is alleged that M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in conspiracy with certain TTD officials with vested interests, knowingly supplied adulterated and substandard cow ghee in violation of the conditions outlined in the tender agreement. This act, the prosecution asserts, was part of a deliberate criminal conspiracy aimed at not only defrauding TTD but also hurting the religious sentiments of Hindu devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Tirumala. The alleged incident occurred before 12.07.2024, at the TTD Administration Building, Tirupati, and was formally reported at the East Police Station, Tirupati, on 25.09.2024 at 1:45 PM by the complainant, Sri P. Murali Krishna, General Manager (Procurement), TTD. According to the complaint, TTD had floated a tender on 12.03.2024 to procure 10 lakh kilograms of cow ghee with Agmark Special Grade. The tender was awarded to M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited on 08.05.2024, with the supply order issued on 15.05.2024. The supplier delivered four consignments via tankers on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 04.07.2024. Samples from these consignments were discreetly sent for analysis to the NDDB CALF Laboratory in Anand, Gujarat. In its report dated 12.07.2024, the laboratory confirmed that the ghee was substandard and adulterated, containing both vegetable and animal fat- based adulterants, including lard. Based on this laboratory analysis, Sri P. Murali Krishna filed a formal complaint requesting legal action against M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited for breach of contractual obligations and for committing fraud and cheating with intent to obtain wrongful gain. 4. Based on this laboratory analysis, Sri P. Murali Krishna filed a formal complaint requesting legal action against M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited for breach of contractual obligations and for committing fraud and cheating with intent to obtain wrongful gain. 4. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, filed a counter on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 contending that: (i) The case stems from a complaint filed on 25.09.2024 by Shri P.Murali Krishna, General Manager (Procurement), TTD, regarding adulterated ghee used in Laddu Prasadam. AR Dairy, the sole supplier failing to improve quality, was awarded a tender on 08.05.2024 for the supply of 10 lakh kg of ghee. Subsequent testing revealed adulteration with vegetable and animal fats. (ii) The Supreme Court, in W.P.(C) No.622/2024, ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the issue. The investigation exposed a conspiracy involving multiple entities, including AR Dairy, Bhole Baba Dairy, Vyshnavi Dairy, and their directors, who falsified documents and bribed TTD officials to retain the contract. Further accused were added, and A.2 to A.5 were arrested on 09.02.2025. A.5, during custodial interrogation, confessed to instructing the petitioner, Shri Ankit P. Zatakiya, to destroy incriminating devices (mobile and laptop) in January 2025. (iii) The petitioner failed to comply despite repeated notices, citing medical reasons. Searches under Section 185 BNSS yielded no evidence. Although the petitioner attended the inquiry, he remained uncooperative, withholding crucial evidence about the devices. (iv) While the petitioner has not been formally charged, his role is under investigation. He allegedly sheltered the absconding accused (A-5) and possesses knowledge of the whereabouts of key evidence. His lack of cooperation raises concerns about continued obstruction if anticipatory bail is granted. 5. I have heard Sri R.V.Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner's brother-in-law, Mr Apurva Vinaykanth Chavda (A.5), CEO of Vyshnavi Dairy Specialities Pvt. Ltd., was implicated in Cr. No.470/2024 for adulterated ghee in Tirumala Laddu Prasadam. The Supreme Court ordered a CBI-monitored SIT probe. A.5’s family briefly stayed at the petitioner’s Mumbai residence, but there was no direct communication regarding the case. No.470/2024 for adulterated ghee in Tirumala Laddu Prasadam. The Supreme Court ordered a CBI-monitored SIT probe. A.5’s family briefly stayed at the petitioner’s Mumbai residence, but there was no direct communication regarding the case. While the petitioner may not have been formally shown as an accused, the material placed by the prosecution reveals that notices were served to the petitioner, and a search was conducted on both his and his wife’s business premises. Furthermore, there’s a palpable threat of arrest of the petitioner. Though the prosecution’s claims of involvement remain unestablished, the petitioner has been coerced into appearing before the investigating officer without valid cause. The insistence on the petitioner’s presence is unjustifiable, especially when the authenticity of the allegations made by A.5 has yet to be verified. The petitioner claims no knowledge of the matter, has fully cooperated with the investigation, and seeks anticipatory bail, citing no incriminating findings, permanent residence, and no risk of absconding. 7. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned special public prosecutor for the Respondents/State, contends that the petitioner is not an accused in Crime No. 470 of 2024, registered at East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District. He further argues that the anticipatory bail petition is premature, as the Investigating Officer holds discretion regarding whom to arrest or include as an accused. He further contends that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) issued an e-tender on 12.03.2024 for the supply of 10 lakh kilograms of cow ghee, with a supply order subsequently issued on 15.05.2024 in favour of AR Diary at a rate of Rs. 319.8 per kilogram; this process appears both unviable and unreasonable for the supply of pure ghee; AR Diary reportedly supplied four tankers, and samples were drawn from two tankers on 06.07.2024 and two tankers on 12.07.2024, which were forwarded to NDDB Calf Land. It is further claimed that AR Diary supplied substandard and adulterated ghee with the intent to wrongfully gain. 8. This court views that while filing a First Information Report is not a prerequisite for exercising power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the imminence of a likely arrest, based on a reasonable belief, must be demonstrated. Moreover, the apprehension of arrest must be grounded in concrete facts rather than vague or general allegations and be linked to a specific offence. 9. Moreover, the apprehension of arrest must be grounded in concrete facts rather than vague or general allegations and be linked to a specific offence. 9. As of the date of concluding arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution contends that the Investigating Officer has concluded that the material collected as of the date is insufficient to array the petitioner as an accused and that there are no grounds for the petitioner's arrest. 10. In Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab , [ (1980) 2 SCC 565 ] in support of his contention, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 35. Section 438 (1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief", for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some vague apprehension that someone is going to accuse him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence must be capable of being examined by the court objectively because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Therefore, Section 438 (1) cannot be invoked based on vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure an individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely 11. In light of the observations above and as noted in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab , the power under Section 438 (1) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked based on vague and general allegations, as doing so would lead to a surge in anticipatory bail applications. 12. During the investigation, Accused Nos.3 to 5 were arrested on 09.02.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. 12. During the investigation, Accused Nos.3 to 5 were arrested on 09.02.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Accused No. 5 (A.5), CEO of Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialities Ltd., Tirupati, was later taken into police custody. A.5 revealed that in November 2024, he gave his mobile phone and laptop to the petitioner, his brother-in-law, in Mumbai. In January 2025, A.5 instructed the petitioner to destroy both devices by phone. On 17.02.2025, the Respondent obtained a warrant to search the petitioner's business premises, where a 500 GB Western Digital hard disk (Model: WD5000AAKX, S/N: WCC2EF5KK57) containing old CCTV recordings was seized. Separately, the Respondent also obtained a search warrant for Harshman Calibration Lab Pvt. Ltd., managed by the petitioner’s wife. The search, conducted in her presence, yielded no incriminating evidence. 13. On 15.02.2025, the petitioner was served a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS , directing him to produce the mobile phone and laptop, which are crucial evidence in the case. Additionally, a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS required his appearance before the Investigating Officer on 17.02.2025 in Tirupati. The petitioner responded with a representation on 24.02.2025, requesting three weeks to appear on medical grounds. The record shows that the petitioner has complied with the court's orders and appeared before the Investigating Officer. However, the Respondent claims the petitioner has not disclosed the whereabouts of A.5's mobile phone and laptop and asserts that the notices were issued solely for those devices. 14. In the counter, the learned Special Public Prosecutor asserts that while the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer, he failed to cooperate and provided no information regarding A.5's laptop and mobile phone. The petitioner, however, denies knowledge of the allegations. 15. During the hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI stated that the investigation is ongoing regarding A.5's claim that he handed over his mobile phone and laptop to the petitioner in November 2024 and later instructed him to destroy the devices in January 2025. Following A.5's alleged confession, the Respondent searched the petitioner's and his wife's business premises, but no incriminating material was found. 16. In Sushila Aggarwal V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) , [ (2020) 5 S.C.C. 1 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: 7.6. Following A.5's alleged confession, the Respondent searched the petitioner's and his wife's business premises, but no incriminating material was found. 16. In Sushila Aggarwal V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) , [ (2020) 5 S.C.C. 1 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: 7.6. Thus, considering the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 S.C.C. (Cri) 465], the court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period only after filing of an F.I.R. in respect of the matter covered by the order and the applicant may in such case be directed to obtain an order of bail under Sections 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonable short period after the filing of the F.I.R. The Constitution Bench has further observed that the same need not be followed as an invariable rule. It is further observed and held that the normal rule should not limit the operation of the order in relation to a period. We are of the opinion that the conditions can be imposed by the court concerned while granting a pre-arrest bail order, including limiting the operation of the order in relation to a period of time if the circumstances so warrant, more particularly the stage at which the "anticipatory bail" application is moved, namely, whether the same is at the stage before the F.I.R. is filed or at the stage when the F.I.R. is filed. The investigation is in progress or at the stage when the investigation is complete, and the charge sheet is filed. However, as observed hereinabove, the normal rule should not limit the order in relation to a period of time. 17. In Imran Pratapgadhi V. State of Gujarat and Another , [2025 S.C.C. OnLine SC 678] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 37. We fail to understand how the High Court concluded that the message was posted in a manner that would certainly disturb social harmony. Thereafter, the High Court gave a reason that the investigation was at a nascent stage. We fail to understand how the High Court concluded that the message was posted in a manner that would certainly disturb social harmony. Thereafter, the High Court gave a reason that the investigation was at a nascent stage. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS . When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash F.I.R. only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage. If such embargo is taken as an absolute rule, it will substantially curtail the powers of the High Court, which have been laid down and recognised by this court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 8 18. Upon careful consideration, this court is of the view that, as the investigation is ongoing concerning the version put forth by A.5, granting anticipatory bail solely based on the current absence of prima facie evidence may hinder the petitioner's cooperation with the investigating agency. In light of the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), this court deems it appropriate to impose certain conditions to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, particularly to prevent undue disruption to his business and personal affairs. Considering the prosecution's stand, it is essential to verify the veracity of the statement made by A.5. Until such verification is complete, and as even the Respondent acknowledges, coercive measures, especially the petitioner's arrest, are not warranted at this stage. 19. In line with the observations made in Sushila Aggarwal V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and upon considering the material on record, this court is of the view that a direction should be issued to the Respondent / State restraining it from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for two months. 19. In line with the observations made in Sushila Aggarwal V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and upon considering the material on record, this court is of the view that a direction should be issued to the Respondent / State restraining it from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for two months. However, if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies by law. 20. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for two (2) months from the date of this order. This relief is subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking before the concerned Investigating Officer within one (1) week from today, stating that he will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned and will provide his current residential address. In case of any change in his residential address, the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer through an affidavit. The petitioner is further mandated to adhere to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall provide the Investigating Officer with a functional mobile phone number, which must remain operational during daytime hours. (b) The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever his presence is necessary, with a minimum of 24 hours notice provided for his appearance. (c) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade his from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer. (d) The petitioner is restricted from leaving India. 21. Based on the outcome of the investigation, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies per the law. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.