IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Ashish Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 7467 OF 2025
Decided On : 28-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding allegations of supplying adulterated goods (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the bail application (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court’s examination of evidence and procedural justice (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. determination on the appropriateness of bail (Para 12) |
| 5. conditions imposed upon granting bail (Para 13) |
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. 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 a
The court grants bail based on the absence of direct involvement in contract violations and prior cooperation with the investigation.
Both cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist under the same factual scenario due to their distinct legal requirements.
The Court ruled that cooperation with investigations and the presumption of innocence warranted bail for accused in a case involving food adulteration and conspiracy, despite serious charges.
Bail is the rule, not the exception; accused's cooperation and absence of evidence of witness tampering justified his release.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.