The seriousness of the allegations and the discretion of the Trial Court in granting bail must be considered in the context of the nature of the offences and the appreciation of the material on record during the trial.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - These two petitions are filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3, praying to set aside the order dated 11.06.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.614/2021 and Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, respectively on the file of I additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya arising out of Crime No.161/2021 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya District, for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration act, 1954.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant - Venkatesh, Manager of MaNMUL, Gejjalagere, Mandya, has lodged a complaint on 28.05.2021 alleging that P. Raju/accused No.1 being a contractor of MaNMUL and owner of a tanker bearing registration No.Ka-51/aF-2634 to supply milk to MaNMUL, has violated the terms and conditions of the transport contract and has committed the offences by misusing the milk collected from BMC Centers and also indulged in adulterating the milk and thereby he has caused monitory loss to MaNMUL.

4. The other accused, who has been granted bail, his name has not been included in the FIR and mentioned in the complaint and he has been served with a notice dated 31.05.2021, making an allegation that he made an attempt to adulteration of milk and caused loss to MaNMUL and he also indulged in committing the offence. The Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, granted bail in favour of accused No.1 and in Crl.Misc.No.614/2021, granted bail in favour of other accused, who has been subsequently arraigned as accused No.3. Hence, these two petitions are filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail invoking Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. The main contention of the complainant in Crl.P.No.4394/2021 granted bail in favour of accused No.1, contended that he has committed the serious offence and indulged in scandalous activities endangering the health of the general public who are the end users. When such being the case, the very presence of the respondent herein was in need of fair investigation. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the nature of the allegation made in the complaint and also seriousness of the allegations made against him. The learned counsel also would submit that the Trial Court has failed to consider the complaint, which clearly establishes that the respondent is the habitual offender and another vehicle also seized which was holding secret compartment in between two compartments for storing the water and its secret pipe connecting to the Milk unloading Valve. In spite of it, the Trial Court proceeded to enlarge him on bail on vague grounds. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

6. The contention of the complainant in Crl.P.No.4398/2021 is that the respondent has committed the serious offences of food adulteration which is heinous offence and the same is scandalous activities endangering the health of the general public and while granting the anticipatory bail, the Trial Court has not considered the nature of offences and this respondent has suppressed the fact of habitual offender as he is already indulged in similar activities and he was black-listed from Bangalore District Co-operative Milk Producer's Societies Union Limited. The vehicle was caught on 29.05.2021 and once again another vehicle was caught in similar circumstances on 31.05.2021. When such being factual aspects of the case, the Trial Court failed to take note of all these aspects. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State in both the petitions would submit that the m