APHC010036882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 571/2026 Between:

M.VIJAY BHASKARA REDDY, S/O JANARDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.DAIRY EXPERT MEMBER OF TECHNICALTEAM FOR PLANT INSPECTION, SRI TTD, R/O. FLAT NO.401, SRIKARI NILAYAM,KOWKOOR, SECUNDERABAD-10.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PARDESH AT AMARAVATIHIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATIGUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. C SUMON Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.34, in connection with Crime No.470 of 2024 on the file of East Police Station, Tirupati which is registered for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 299, 336(3), 340(2) read with Sections 49 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 51 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short ‘FSS Act’) and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’).

2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri C.Sumon, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, the Petitioner was nominated as a Member of the Tender Evaluation / Inspection Committee constituted by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, and his role was limited, specific, and circumscribed by the terms of reference of the Committee. His duties were confined to technical evaluation of the documents submitted by bidders and inspection of facilities strictly in accordance with a prescribed checklist. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Committee had no authority to undertake forensic verification of sourcing, audit internal procurement processes, open financial bids, award contracts, monitor subsequent supplies, or verify stock positions. Upon submission of the inspection report, the Petitioner’s role stood concluded.

It is further contended that the allegations relating to internal arrangements between Accused No.3 and M/s. Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Pvt. Ltd. (A6), or the alleged sourcing of ghee from M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited (A7) with payment of commission, are outside the purview of the Tender Evaluation Committee. Such post- award commercial transactions cannot be attributed to the Petitioner.

Likewise, any alleged adulteration in subsequent supplies cannot retrospectively fasten liability upon members of the inspection team who had no role in monitoring or supervising supply execution.

Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has no connection whatsoever with A7 or A19, and there is no common management, financial linkage, or nexus alleged or established. He is not a public servant and rendered only honorary services, receiving merely conveyance and accommodation charges, without any consultancy fee or pecuniary benefit in the instant case.

It is further argued that during search and seizure, no incriminating material evidencing or illegal gratification was recovered from the Petitioner. The alleged transaction of Rs.7,50,000/- pertains to the year 2012, was repaid with interest, and bears no relation to the present tender. The allegation of receipt of Rs.75 lakhs in 2023 is categorically denied and the alleged adulteration is relating to the period 2024–25, long after completion of the tender process.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the investigation is substantially comp