Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y.LAKSHMANA RAO
Ashish Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| 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 :
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’).
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 V
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.
Allegations of non-payment do not constitute criminal offences unless there's evidence of dishonest intention or property entrustment.
Confessional statements made to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, influencing bail decisions where reasonable doubt of guilt exists.
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was a prime suspect in a financial fraud scheme, supported by substantial evidence and ongoing investigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
