ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.16, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.470 of 2024 of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District registered for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 299 read with 49 read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 51 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short ‘FSS Act’).

2. It is alleged against the Petitioner/Accused No.16 that, he was in collusion with the main Accused and supplied chemicals by raising false invoices in the name of Coconut oil, palm oil and palm kernel oil and thereby involved in larger criminal conspiracy relating to the alleged supply of adulterated ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.

3. Heard Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an innocent person, has been falsely implicated and has no role whatsoever in the alleged offence. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the circumstances leading to the present application clearly demonstrate a material change since the earlier rejection of bail, on the ground that the investigation was at a crucial stage. However, the investigation now stands concluded and charge sheet has already been filed.

It is further submitted that during the period of police custody remand granted to the investigating agency, nothing incriminating was recovered from the Petitioner or at his instance. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary.

Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Petitioner is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. All documents and materials have already been collected by the investigating agency. Consequently, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. The trial in the present case is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time, given the number of witnesses and documents relied upon by the prosecution. Continued incarceration of the Petitioner would therefore amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law and violative of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner has deep roots in society. He is a law-abiding businessman, an income tax assessee, and the sole earning member of his family. There is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. He has clean antecedents and has fully cooperated with the investigation throughout.

The principle of parity also strongly supports the case of the Petitioner.

Several co-accused, including those against whom allegations were more serious, have already been granted bail. Even Accused No. 24, against whom allegations of a graver nature were made, has been enlarged on bail. The case of the present Petitioner stands on a much better footing. Therefore, continued detention of the Petitioner serves no purpose whatsoever. His presence can always be secured by appropriate conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI though submitted that the investigation so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is completed and charge sheet has also been filed, opposed the petition and would submit that the offences alleged against the Petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that, the investigation so far done, would reveal the role of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is an influential person and hence, there is a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that, if he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of influencing or threatening the prosecut