Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 882 (AP)

Ashish Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-07-28

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
ORDER : Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C .’) / Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.15 on bail in Crime No.470 of 2024 of East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.15 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 274 , 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), and 299 read with 49 and 35(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’), and Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. The facts in brief, as presented by the prosecution, state that this case pertains to cheating, criminal breach of trust by a merchant, and causing wrongful loss to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) with dishonest and common intention. The allegation is that M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in conspiracy with other vested interests, supplied adulterated and substandard cow ghee, thereby violated the conditions of the tender agreement entered with TTD authorities. 3. It is further alleged that this was done with criminal conspiracy and malicious intent to hurt the religious sentiments of Hindu devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Tirumala, by deliberately supplying impure ghee meant for religious purposes. The incident pertains to the period prior to 12.07.2024 and occurred at the TTD Administration Building, Tirupati. A formal complaint was lodged at East Police Station, Tirupati, on 25.09.2024 at 1:45 PM by the complainant, Sri P. Murali Krishna, General Manager (Procurement), TTD, Tirupati. As per the complaint, TTD had called for tenders on 12.03.2024 for the supply of 10 lakh kilograms of Agmark Special Grade Cow Ghee. The tender was finalized on 08.05.2024, and a supply order was issued on 15.05.2024 to M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul. The firm subsequently supplied four tanker loads of ghee on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 04.07.2024, respectively. Samples from the supplied ghee were sent confidentially to NDDB CALF Lab, Anand, Gujarat, for testing. The laboratory report dated 12.07.2024 confirmed that the ghee was substandard and adulterated, containing both vegetable and animal fat- based adulterants, including LARD. The firm subsequently supplied four tanker loads of ghee on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 04.07.2024, respectively. Samples from the supplied ghee were sent confidentially to NDDB CALF Lab, Anand, Gujarat, for testing. The laboratory report dated 12.07.2024 confirmed that the ghee was substandard and adulterated, containing both vegetable and animal fat- based adulterants, including LARD. Based on this lab report, the complainant, P. Murali Krishna, lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO), East Police Station, Tirupati, requesting legal action against M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, for breaching tender agreement clauses and committing cheating for wrongful gain. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 5. Sri S. Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Vakakti Venkata Gnanusha, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is the sole bread winner of his family; he is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged that the Petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 125 days. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2025. In this case, the charge sheet was filed on 08.05.2025. Except for the allegation of committing breach of trust under Section 316 (5) of ‘the BNS .,’ arrest of the remaining sections punishable for an imprisonment less than 7 years. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the linchpin. The Petitioner is not a public servant. There was no direct contract in between the Petitioner and the TTD. The Petitioner is not a contractor, even. In this case, Accused No.3 to 5 were already enlarged on bail. Originally, a notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS, was issued to the Petitioner, which he complied with on several occasions. Subsequently, he was arrested on the allegation that he destroyed his mobile phone. However, Section 201 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ / Section 238 of ‘the BNS . has not yet been invoked, the allegation against the Petitioner appears implausible. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail on whatever conditions this Court inclines to impose on the Petitioner. 6. Subsequently, he was arrested on the allegation that he destroyed his mobile phone. However, Section 201 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ / Section 238 of ‘the BNS . has not yet been invoked, the allegation against the Petitioner appears implausible. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail on whatever conditions this Court inclines to impose on the Petitioner. 6. Per contra, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the Petitioner had indulged in the offence highhandedly, there was prima-facie case made out against the Petitioner; some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the Petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law. It is further submitted that the Petitioner destroyed crucial evidence, i.e., his mobile phone, and also instructed his aides to destroy their mobile phones. Though the Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS , he did not cooperate with the investigation. The Investigating Officer found that the Petitioner had deliberately destroyed material evidence, leaving the officer with no option but to arrest him. It is also submitted that although the charge sheet has been filed, further investigation is in progress. Therefore, releasing the Petitioner at this stage would hamper the investigation and may lead to influencing witnesses. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the Petitioner, being Accused No.15, did not cooperate with the investigation, and specific reasons were assigned for his arrest in the remand report. It is alleged that he not only destroyed his mobile phone but also instructed his employees to destroy their phones and procure new ones. Moreover, the Petitioner fraudulently created false records to enable M/s. Bhole Baba Dairy to show that ghee was purchased from entities belonging to him, without there being any actual transaction. The Petitioner is alleged to have received huge sums of money through bank transfers for the fictitious supply of ghee and subsequently returned the account in cash through hawala to Accused Nos.3 and 4 by keeping some amount towards his commission. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail ?”. 10. POINT: As seen from the record, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet on 08.05.2025 after a thorough investigation. Later, the investigating officer felt the need to conduct further investigation to detect some more oral and documentary evidence. 11. There is an allegation that the Petitioner destroyed his mobile phone and also instructed his associates to destroy their mobile phones. However, so far, as seen from the record, the investigation officer has not invoked under Section 201 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in this case. Upon perusal of the entire material on record, it is evident that the Petitioner is neither a contractor nor a public servant. The record further reveals that the Petitioner has no direct contract with TTD regarding the supply of Laddus. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2025 and has since been in the judicial custody for the past 125 days. Since the Petitioner is not a public servant and there was no entrustment of property to him, the applicability of the penal provision relating to breach of trust appears doubtful. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.4203 of 2025, 4187 of 2025 and 4198 of 2025, by a detailed and reasoned order dated 03.07.2025, enlarged the petitioners therein on bail, while directing them to cooperate with the investigating officer in all aspects. Further, the record shows that the Petitioner has, from time to time, cooperated with the investigating agency by appearing before the inspector of police pursuant to the notices issued under Section 179 of ‘the BNSS .,’ on several occasions. However, on 21.03.2025, when the Petitioner appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS .,’ he was arrested without assigning any fresh reasons for his arrest. 12. However, on 21.03.2025, when the Petitioner appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS .,’ he was arrested without assigning any fresh reasons for his arrest. 12. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against Petitioner, and his alleged role in the case, the period of detention undergone by him in the judicial custody, the filing of the charge sheet, and the time likely to be taken for completion of the trial in the near future, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.15 on bail. This Court is of the opinion that if certain stringent conditions are imposed on the Petitioner for securing his presence before the learned Trial Court for trial, the interest of justice would be met. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions : i. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-Cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 shall appear before the Station House Officer, East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District, on every fifteen days in a month, till the conclusion of the Trial. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 shall not leave the limits of the Country without prior permission from the Investigating Officer. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 shall not commit or indulge in similar offences in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.15 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall be available to the investigating officer as and when called by him. vi) The petitioner/Accused No.15 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.