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.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’).

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 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 were more serious, have already been granted bail. Even Accused No. 24, against whom allegations of a graver nature were made, has been enlarged on bail. The case of the present Petitioner stands on a much better footing. Therefore, continued detention of the Petitioner serves no purpose whatsoever. His presence can always be secured by appropriate conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI though submitted that the investigation so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is completed and charge sheet has also been filed, opposed the petition and would submit that the offences alleged against the Petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that, the investigation so far done, would reveal the role of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is an influential person and hence, there is a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that, if he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of influencing or threatening the prosecution witnesses. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would finally submit that, no case is made out for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that, insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned, the investigation has been completed and a charge sheet has already been filed. The rejection of the earlier bail application was primarily on the ground that the investigation was at a crucial stage, which no longer subsists. This, in the considered view of the Court, constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting a fresh consideration of the bail request.

7. The record further reveals that during the course of custodial interrogation, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the Petitioner, nor has the prosecution placed any material to indicate that any further custodial interrogation is required. In such circumstances, the continued detention of the Petitioner cannot be justified on the ground of investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the Petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, is not supported by any specific material. Such apprehensions, though not to be lightly ignored, can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions while granting bail.

8. It is also pertinent to note that the trial in the present case is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, having regard to the volume of evidence and the number of witnesses involved. Prolonged incarceration of an under-trial, in such circumstances, would amount to pre- trial punishment, which is impermissible in law and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of bail.

9. This Court also finds merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel regarding the principle of parity. It is not disputed that several co- accused, including those against whom allegations of a more serious nature have been levelled, have already been granted bail. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner is likely to abscond. His cooperation with the investigation has also not been disputed. Balancing the interests of the prosecution and the rights of the Accused, this Court is of the considered view that the object of securing the presence of the Petitioner during trial can be adequately achieved by imposing suitable conditions, rather than by continued pre-trial detention.

10. In view of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and having regard to the completion of investigation, the period of custody already undergone, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner can be enlarged on bail subject to the following stringent conditions.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Petitioner / Accused No.16 shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

                  (i) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 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.16 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.16 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any.

                  (iv) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

                  (v) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses or co-accused, except during legal proceedings.

                  (vi) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 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.

                  (vii) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 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.

                  (viii) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 shall furnish his active mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall be available at all times and any change shall be intimated forthwith.

                  (ix) The Petitioner / Accused No.16 shall appear before the Investigating Agency twice in a month i.e., on 2nd and 4th 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.