ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 1theBNSS, seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.24 on bail in Crime No.470 of 2024 of Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2) and 299 read with 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 2theBNS, Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, 3theFSSAct

2. The facts in brief, as presented by the prosecution, state that M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in conspiracy with other accused, had supplied deliberately adulterated and substandard cow ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), thereby violated the conditions of the tender agreement entered with TTD causing wrongful loss and affected the religious sentiments of Hindu devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Tirumala. A formal complaint was lodged at East Police Station, Tirupati, on 25.09.2024 at 1:45 PM by the de-facto complainant, P. Murali Krishna, General Manager (Procurement), TTD, Tirupati. As per the complaint, TTD 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 confidentially sent 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 de-facto complainant, lodged a complaint requesting legal action against M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, for breaching tender agreement clauses and committing cheating for wrongful gain.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri C. Nageswara Rao, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Uday Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He has got fixed abode. He would not evade from process of law, if he enlarged on bail. He is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court for enlarging on bail. It is further submitted that on more than three occasions the petitioner was summoned by the investigating officer. Every such time the petitioner cooperated with the investigating officer. After his arrest, the petitioner was also taken to police custody for about five days. Therefore, nothing remains in this case for further investigation with respect to the alleged role played by the petitioner. The petitioner at relevant point of time was neither an employee of former chairman of TTD nor indulged in adulteration of ghee. For about more than eight times, he had been to the office of the CBI for coopering in the process of investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to find out whether the ghee supplied to the TTD was adulterated or not. There was no direction from the Hon’ble Apex Court to conduct investigation regarding the alleged amassment of wealth by the petitioner or any other accused, for that matter. Thus, there was a misdirection in the investigation process, and the investigation has been conducted sans jurisdiction. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court was wrongfully interpreted by the 2nd respondent.

5. Sri C. Nageswara Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further argued that all the main accused were enlarged on bail, except the petitioner who has been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. The phone of the