1. 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.29, 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‟).

2. It is alleged against the Petitioner / Accused No.29 that, he worked as General Manager (Procurement), TTD, Tirupati during the periods from 06.07.2017 to 17.05.2018 and from 13.05.2020 to 01.05.2023, and that he was the head of the Procurement Section responsible for procurement of various commodities, including “Agmark Special grade cow ghee” for the preparation of sacred Srivari Laddu Prasadams. It is also alleged that, as a member of the technical team for plant inspection, he accepted undue advantage and issued a favourable plant inspection report in favour of M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited. Further, it is alleged that during the period from March 2022 to April 2023, he demanded and accepted undue advantage and extended official favour to M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited, M/s Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialities Private Limited, and M/s Malganga Milk and Agro Products Private Limited.

3. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of 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 allegations levelled against the Petitioner are wholly false and untenable. Even assuming that any adulteration in ghee was found, it is the statutory duty of the Deputy Executive Officer (Warehousing) to issue notices, place the matter on file, and initiate appropriate action, and the Petitioner had no role or responsibility in initiating any such proceedings.

                  It is further submitted that the report in question was not issued by the Petitioner but the same was issued by the Plant Inspection Team. The investigation agency‟s claim that the reports of the inspection committees were manipulated by the Petitioner is baseless, as all such reports are prepared and signed by independent dairy experts and senior officials, including members of the Ghee Committee from outside TTD, such as experts from Bangalore and Hyderabad, who conduct independent inspections and assessments. The Petitioner‟s role was limited to coordination of visits.

                  Learned Senior Counsel would submit that when Bhole Baba Dairy failed to furnish requisite documents in June 2022, it was duly found not qualified for the subsequent supply period commencing November 2022. Further, the exclusion of “Beta Sitosterol” from the tender conditions was a decision taken by the Executive Officer based on expert recommendations and in conformity with prevailing FSSAI standards, and the Petitioner had no role in such decision. Therefore, the allegation of any undue advantage is baseless.

                  It is further submitted that the petitioner is being falsely implicated and harassed despite having discharged his duties in his capacity as GM (Procurement). It is submitted that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, and other officers, including experts, have not been arrested.

                  Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the investigation if the Petitioner is granted bail, as there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

                  Learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the SIT on multiple occasions, and furnished all documents and explanations as sought. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is suffering from serious ailments including hypertension and epilepsy, requiring continuous medical care. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025 and is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that a supplementary charge sheet dated 23.01.2026 has been filed against A-16 to A-36, including the Petitioner (A-29), before the Hon‟ble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is an influential person and a Senior Officer in TTD, and there exists a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that, if released on bail, he may induce, threaten, or otherwise influence the prosecution witnesses, thereby adversely affecting the fair conduct of the trial. It is also submitted that the investigation has revealed the active role of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, and the allegations are supported by documentary evidence as well as statements of witnesses. The involvement of the Petitioner is prima facie established, and therefore, the case does not warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour at this stage. Learned Special Public Prosecutor finally submits that, in view of the cumulative effect of the gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the Petitioner, the severity of the punishment involved, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses and prejudicing the investigation and trial, the Petitioner is not entitled to the bail at this stage.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled principle that the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, subject to the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, prima facie case, and the likelihood of the Accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

7. In the present case, the role attributed to the Petitioner, as projected by the prosecution, appears to be based largely on documentary material and official functions performed in his capacity as GM (Procurement). The contention of the Petitioner that the inspection reports were prepared by independent expert committees and that he had only a coordinating role, requires thorough examination during trial.

8. The Court also takes note of the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail, and there is no material placed before this Court to show any specific instance where the Petitioner has attempted to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses during the course of investigation. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025 and has cooperated with the investigation. Further, the Petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court his medical condition, which requires due consideration, particularly when adequate safeguards can be imposed.

9. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible influence over witnesses, though not unfounded in serious economic offences, can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. At this stage, there is no concrete material to conclude that the Petitioner would misuse the liberty if released on bail. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that further detention of the Petitioner is not warranted and that he can be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate stringent conditions.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

                  (i) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

                  (ii) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;

                  (iii) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall not leave the limits of the State without giving intimation to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Agency shall furnish their Whatsapp mobile number to the Petitioner / Accused No.29 for the purpose of convenience.

                  (iv) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any.

                  (v) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

                  (vi) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.

                  (vii) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall not make or publish or disseminate any information, statement, or post whether in print, electronic or social media concerning the present crime till conclusion of the trial.

                  (viii) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall not operate or manage any company, firm, or bank account alleged to have been used in connection with the offence, except with prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.

                  (ix) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall furnish his active mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all times and any change shall be intimated forthwith.

                  (x) The Petitioner / Accused No.29 shall appear before the Investigating Agency once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

                  In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

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