Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Official Allegedly Involved In Supplying Adulterated Ghee To Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam
The High Court declined to grant bail to a public servant arraigned as an accused in the alleged supply of adulterated and sub-standard cow ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, holding that the gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the larger public and religious ramifications of the offence militated against his release at this stage.
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied bail to a public servant in connection with allegations relating to the supply of adulterated cow ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, observing that the nature of the accusations, the material collected during investigation, and the ongoing probe into a larger conspiracy warranted continued judicial custody.
The Court was hearing a criminal petition seeking bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a crime registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The matter was heard by Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Background
The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged by an official of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam alleging that a private dairy firm, in conspiracy with others, had supplied adulterated and sub-standard cow ghee in violation of tender conditions.
Pursuant to a tender floated for the supply of Agmark Special Grade Cow Ghee, multiple tanker loads were supplied to the Devasthanam. Samples of the supplied ghee were sent for laboratory testing, which reported that the ghee was sub-standard and adulterated, containing vegetable and animal fat-based adulterants, including lard.
On the basis of the laboratory report, a criminal case was registered alleging offences relating to adulteration of food, cheating, conspiracy, and other allied offences. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on allegations that he had interfered in the tender process and demanded illegal gratification from suppliers.
The petitioner sought bail, contending that he had cooperated with the investigation, that he was falsely implicated, and that other accused had already been released on bail.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that the investigation was being conducted by a Special Investigation Team reconstituted pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court to ensure an independent and credible probe, keeping in view the concerns of devotees and the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court rejected the contention that the investigation was conducted without jurisdiction, observing that the Supreme Court had expressly directed investigation by an independent team comprising representatives of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the State Government, and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.
The Bench took note of the prosecution’s assertion that the petitioner, a public servant at the relevant time, had allegedly demanded commission on the supply of ghee, had not fully cooperated with the investigation, and that further custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy, including the flow of illegal funds and identification of beneficiaries.
The Court also noted the allegations regarding disproportionate assets, unexplained bank transactions, acquisition of immovable properties, and the role attributed to the petitioner in influencing administrative decisions relating to the tender process.
Relying on settled principles governing the grant of bail, as laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that at the bail stage it was required to consider the gravity of the offence, the nature of the accusations, the stage of investigation, and the likelihood of the accused hampering the probe if released.
The Court observed that the alleged offence pertained to the supply of adulterated ghee to a major religious institution, affecting the sentiments of a large number of devotees, and that the investigation into the petitioner’s role was at a crucial stage, with several accused yet to be apprehended.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that, considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the material placed on record, and the ongoing investigation into a larger conspiracy, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the grant of bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the criminal petition seeking bail was dismissed.
Cause Title: Kanduru Chinnappanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh And Others
Appearances
Petitioner: C. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate, V. Uday Kumar, Advocate
Respondents: P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI