##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:23907 APHC010713262025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No:978 / 2026 Between:

A JAY KUMAR SUGANDH, S/O.JEET RAI SUGANDH, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.SUGANDH OIL & CHEMICALS, 2/53B, NORTH AVENUE ROAD, LAXMI MARKET, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 96, HARSH VIHAR, PITAMPURA, PS=RANIBAGH, NEW DELHI-110034 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 171, HARSH VIHAR,

PITAMPURA, PS RANIBAGH, NEW DELHI 110034.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.16 AND

1. STATE THROUGH THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF

POLICE (ADMN.), TIRUPATI.

2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.16:

1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI The Court made the following:

ORDER:

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’).

2026:APHC:23907

2

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

2026:APHC:23907

3 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