1. 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 complete and a preliminary charge sheet has been filed without specific reference to the Petitioner. The prime Accused in the present case have already been granted bail. The Petitioner, aged about 62 years, having no criminal antecedents and permanent roots in Secunderabad, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

4. Per contra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I would submit that, being a Member of the Tender Evaluation/Inspection Committee constituted by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, the Petitioner was entrusted with a position of trust and responsibility in a procurement process involving substantial public interest. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed material indicating that the inspection was not a mere routine exercise but was conducted in a manner that enabled ineligible entities to qualify. The plea that the Committee had no authority beyond document verification cannot absolve the Petitioner if such verification was perfunctory, knowingly improper, or in connivance with other Accused. The extent of his knowledge and involvement is a matter for thorough investigation and cannot be decided at this stage. It is further submitted that the Petitioner received Rs.75.00 lakhs through Hawala transactions.

                  The contention that post-award transactions or adulteration cannot be attributed to the Petitioner, is premature. According to the prosecution, the role of the Petitioner forms part of a larger conspiracy hatched at the inception of the tender process and the involvement of each accused is interconnected. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that mere absence of recovery during search does not exonerate the Petitioner at this stage. Financial trails and indirect benefits are being examined. The plea of honorary service or lack of official designation does not protect the Petitioner from criminal liability if active participation in the conspiracy is established.

                  It is also submitted that the filing of a preliminary charge sheet does not preclude further investigation under law, and the role of the Petitioner is still under active scrutiny. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper further investigation, particularly in relation to custodial interrogation, confrontation with co-accused, and examination of financial records. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the magnitude of the offence, the prosecution prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition. In support of their contentions, learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement((2019) 9 SCC 24).

5. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material placed on record. At this stage, the material placed by the prosecution prima facie indicates that the tender process in question involved substantial public interest and that the inspection conducted by the Tender Evaluation / Inspection Committee played a significant role in determining the eligibility of the participating entities. The allegation of the prosecution is that the inspection was carried out in a manner that enabled ineligible entities to qualify and that the conspiracy relating to the tender process commenced at the inception itself.

6. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,( 2025 SCC Online SC 764) held as follows:

                  “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes.

                  ***

                  23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram’s case referred to supra, also categorically held that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly and that in economic offences, the Accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is emphasized that granting extraordinary relief like anticipatory bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the conduct of the Accused constitutes a failure to apply relevant legal principles.

8. In the case at hand, the contention of the Petitioner that his role was confined only to verification of documents and inspection in accordance with a checklist cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, at this stage. Whether such verification was properly carried out, or whether it was done in a perfunctory or collusive manner, are matters which require detailed investigation. The question as to the extent of knowledge and involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged conspiracy cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

9. It is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.75 lakhs was allegedly received by the Petitioner through hawala transactions. Though the Petitioner has denied the said allegation, the financial trail and related transactions are still under investigation. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner may be necessary for effective investigation. The submission that no incriminating material was recovered during search, and that the Petitioner had rendered only honorary services, cannot by themselves justify grant of anticipatory bail at this stage when the investigation into the conspiracy and financial transactions is still in progress. Further, the filing of a preliminary charge sheet does not preclude further investigation and the role of the Petitioner remains under examination.

10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the offence, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the investigation or any subsequent proceedings in the case.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.