2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19219

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Kanduru Chinnappanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 12357/2025

In serious economic offences involving adulteration, bribery, and disproportionate assets, bail may be refused where investigation is at a crucial stage, several accused are absconding, and releasing the accused would hamper further probe and risk tampering with evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bail - Grant of bail in non-bailable offences - Principles for consideration: nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, evidence prima facie, risk of absconding or witness tampering, character and standing of accused, likelihood of repetition, public interest. (Paras 11-25)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 2(c) - Public Servant - Definition - Special Liaison Officer paid by State Government falls within definition. (Para 29)

(C) Economic Offences - Stricter approach to bail due to serious impact on public funds and national economy - Deep-rooted conspiracies require caution. (Para 21)

(D) Bail - Discretion must be exercised judiciously with cogent reasons - Detailed examination of evidence unnecessary at bail stage - Recording of reasons mandatory - Balance between individual liberty and societal interest. (Paras 11-18, 23, 24) (E) Investigation - Supreme Court direction for independent SIT - Investigation by reconstituted SIT not sans jurisdiction - Misdirection argument negated. (Para 9) (F) Right to Silence - Accused has right to remain silent under Section 315 CrPC and Article 20(3) of Constitution - Non-cooperation in investigation cannot be compelled but withholding facts may be considered in bail context. (Para 33)

Facts of the case:
M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited was awarded tender to supply 10 lakh kgs of Agmark Special Grade Cow Ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). Samples tested by NDDB CALF Lab showed ghee was substandard and adulterated with vegetable and animal fat including LARD. Complaint lodged. Investigation revealed role of petitioner (Accused No.24) who worked as Special Liaison Officer at AP Bhavan, New Delhi, and later as Special Officer, a public servant. It was alleged petitioner demanded Rs.25 per kg commission from ghee suppliers, interfered in TTD administrative affairs, and amassed disproportionate assets (Rs.4.60 crores transactions against salary of ~Rs.65 lakhs) and acquired 14 immovable properties. Petitioner arrested on 29.10.2025, in custody for 47 days. Several main accused granted bail. Four accused still at large. Petitioner sought bail under BNSS Sections 480 and 483.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation by the SIT constituted by Supreme Court was valid and not sans jurisdiction. The allegations against petitioner are grave - he is a public servant who allegedly demanded and received bribes, interfered in tender process, and amassed disproportionate assets. Investigation is at crucial stage; four accused are absconding; enlarging petitioner on bail would hamper further investigation. The court applied principles from Supreme Court judgments (Pinki, Gudikanti, Ram Govind Upadhyay, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Brijmani Devi, Manoj Kumar Khokhar, Rohit Bishnoi, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, P. Chidambaram) emphasizing gravity of economic offences, need to balance liberty with societal interest, and that bail must be refused where there is risk of tampering or flight. The court also noted that non-cooperation in investigation does not infringe right to silence but is a relevant factor. Disproportionate assets and large unexplained transactions are prima facie material.

Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under BNSS Sections 480 and 483 considering the nature and gravity of allegations of adulteration, bribery, and corruption. (2) Whether the investigation by SIT was without jurisdiction due to misinterpretation of Supreme Court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail cannot be granted where the allegations involve serious economic offences, deep-rooted conspiracies affecting public faith and national economy, and where investigation is at a critical stage with several accused at large. The court must weigh individual liberty against societal interest and the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. The petitioner being a public servant allegedly amassed disproportionate wealth and interfered in TTD affairs, justifying refusal of bail.

Result: Criminal Petition dismissed. (Para 36)