Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ashish Agarwal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7467/2025
ORDER:
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 BNSS’),
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
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
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. 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
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
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
BNSS.,’ 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. 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.
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
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.
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
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
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
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. 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
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025for 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.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 28.07.2025
KMS
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7467 of 2025
Dated 28.07.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7467 of 2025
Date: 28.07.2025
KMS
