Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Raju Rajasekharan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
1
APHC010335382025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6962/2025
Between:
1. RAJU RAJASEKHARAN, S/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D.NO.2/52
D.NO.2/52-2,
2, RAAJ KUDIL PILLAIYARNATTHAM,
DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O. EAST PS,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT
AMARAVATHI.
2. THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, SIT OFFICE, OLD SCBC
BUILDING, OPP. BALAJI LINK BUS STAND, ALIPIRI, TIRUPATHI.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High CourtCourt to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2
on bail in connection with FIR.No.470/2024 Dt.25.09.2024 on the file of the
SHO Tirupathi East Policelice Station, Tirupathi District for punishable offences
under Sections 274,275 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 299, 336(3) 340(2) r/w
49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 51 & 59 of
the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Counsell for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VMR LEGAL
2Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition, under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the
petitioner/A.2 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.470/2024 of
Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi District.
2. A case has been registered against the accused and others for the
offence punishable under Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 299 r/w 49
r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and sections 51 &
59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act (for short, ‘FSSA’).
3. The prosecution’s case concerns charges of cheating, criminal breach
of trust by a merchant, and causing wrongful loss to the Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanams (TTD) with a dishonest and common intention. It is alleged that
M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in conspiracy with
certain TTD officials with vested interests, knowingly supplied adulterated and
substandard cow ghee in violation of the conditions outlined in the tender
agreement. This act, the prosecution asserts, was part of a deliberate criminal
conspiracy aimed at not only defrauding TTD but also hurting the religious
sentiments of Hindu devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Tirumala.
The alleged incident occurred before 12.07.2024, at the TTD Administration
Building, Tirupati, and was formally reported at the East Police Station,
Tirupati, on 25.09.2024 at 1:45 PM by the complainant, Sri P. Murali Krishna,
General Manager (Procurement), TTD. According to the complaint, TTD had
floated a tender on 12.03.2024 to procure 10 lakh kilograms of cow ghee with
Agmark Special Grade. The tender was awarded to M/s AR Dairy Food
Private Limited on 08.05.2024, with the supply order issued on 15.05.2024.
The supplier delivered four consignments via tankers on 12.06.2024,
3
20.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 04.07.2024. Samples from these consignments
were discreetly sent for analysis to the NDDB CALF Laboratory in Anand,
Gujarat. In its report dated 12.07.2024, the laboratory confirmed that the ghee
was substandard and adulterated, containing both vegetable and animal fat-
based adulterants, including lard. Based on this laboratory analysis, Sri P.
Murali Krishna filed a formal complaint requesting legal action against M/s AR
Dairy Food Private Limited for breach of contractual obligations and for
committing fraud and cheating with intent to obtain wrongful gain.
4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner / A.2,
contends that the FIR was registered on 25.09.2024, over two months after
the TTD’s show cause notice dated 23.07.2024, and only following a public
statement by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The timing and circumstances
suggest political and commercial motivations rather than genuine criminality.
The petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2025 and remains in judicial custody.
Police custody was granted and fully utilized; all relevant documents and
electronic devices have been seized. The entire investigation has been
completed, and the charge sheet has been filed. No further custodial
interrogation is required. It is submitted that the allegations, even if accepted,
pertain to a contractual dispute over the quality of goods supplied, squarely
governed by an arbitration clause, and do not warrant criminal prosecution.
Invocation of criminal law in such a case is unwarranted and contrary to
settled legal principles. No prima facie case is made out under Sections
316(5) or 318 of the BNS. The petitioner suffers from severe medical
conditions, including coronary artery disease (with multiple stents), possible
lymphoproliferative/metastatic disorder, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic
kidney stones. Continued incarceration poses grave health risks and violates
the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, strong community
ties, and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
4
5. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI,
vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner / A.2.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their
submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the
report.
7. In Masroor V. State of U.P.1, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed as follows:
13. … Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of
evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may
prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate
in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to grant bail to Accused Nos.3 to 5, and that the case of
the present petitioner stands on a similar footing. In support of this contention,
reliance is placed on the bail orders passed in Crl.P.Nos. 4203, 4187, and
4198 of 2025. It is alleged that Accused Nos. 3 and 4, as directors of the A.6
and A.7 factories, masterminded a large-scale conspiracy to supply
adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). The
prosecution asserts that during the period of supply, A.7 did not procure or
purchase any milk, yet still participated in fulfilling ghee supply contracts to
TTD through A.6 and A.7. According to the prosecution, A.6 and A.7 were
primarily used to secure TTD ghee tenders after A.3 and A.5 allegedly failed
to meet the tender conditions through their original company.
9. A perusal of the material placed on record indicates that the case
against the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of Accused Nos. 3 to
5. As reflected in the record, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)
issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 23.07.2024, to which the
1
(2009) 14 SCC 286
5
petitioner (A.2) submitted a reply, explaining his position. It is an admitted fact
that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. AR Dairy Private Food
Limited was declared the successful bidder and was awarded the contract for
the supply of 10 lakh kilograms of cow ghee. A Writ Petition (C) No.622 of
2024 and its batch were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to carry out a comprehensive
investigation into the matter.
10. The record reveals that the petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2025 and
has been in continuous judicial custody since then. During this period, police
custody was granted initially for five days. It is pertinent to note that the
respondent authorities did not seek any further custodial interrogation
thereafter.
11. As seen from the record, the crime has been registered against the
petitioner and other accused for the offences under sections 274, 275, 316(5),
318(4), 61(2), 299 r/w 49 r/w 3(5) of BNS and sections 51 & 59 of the FSSA.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, except for the
offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS, all other offences alleged against
the petitioner and the co-accused are punishable with imprisonment of up to
seven years. It is contended that Section 316(5) of the BNS has been invoked
solely to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of notice under Section 35(3) of
the BNSS, even though the said provision has no application to the facts of
the present case. According to the prosecution, the ghee supplied by M/s. AR
Dairy Private Limited was allegedly substandard and adulterated, with test
results indicating the presence of vegetable-and animal-fat-based adulterants,
including LARD.
12. To attract the provisions of Section 316(5) of the BNS, there must be an
element of entrustment of property, the accused must be acting in a fiduciary
capacity, and there must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the
6
entrusted property. However, a perusal of the record indicates that the
transaction in question was purely commercial and governed by contractual
obligations. It is not the prosecution’s case that any property entrusted by TTD
was misappropriated. Given these facts, it appears doubtful whether the
essential ingredients of Section 316(5) of BNS are made out in the present
case. Nonetheless, it is for the competent court to adjudicate upon the
applicability of Section 316(5) of BNS at the appropriate stage of the
proceedings.
13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
procedure prescribed under the FSS Act has not been duly complied with.
Specifically, it is submitted that the samples were not collected in the
presence of the petitioner, but rather in the presence of the driver and cleaner,
who are admittedly not technically qualified persons. It is further argued that
there is no complaint from any individual or authority alleging that any person
suffered grievous injury or death as a result of consuming the allegedly
adulterated food products involved in the present case. A perusal of the
material on record substantiates this claim, as there is no such complaint on
file from any quarter. Significantly, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has
not disputed the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner on this aspect.
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) has an
overriding effect over all other food-related provisions, and places reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Nath V. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others2. It is pointed out that similar contentions were raised
before this Court by Accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crl.P.Nos.4203, 4187 and 4198 of
2025, and this Court, after considering those submissions to some extent, was
pleased to grant bail to A.3 to A.5.
2
(2024) 3 SCC 502
7
15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has coronary artery disease, for which he underwent multiple cardiac stenting
procedures in April 2012. He is currently under antituberculous treatment for a
working diagnosis of tuberculous lymphadenitis. However, a previous PET-CT
scan has indicated the possibility of Stage IV lymphoproliferative disorder or a
metastatic disease, necessitating close medical monitoring, assessment of
treatment response, and repeat diagnostic investigations. It is further
submitted that the petitioner suffers from recurrent ureteric calculi, for which
he underwent a surgical procedure on 30.11.2024. Additionally, he has long-
standing diabetes mellitus and hypertension, both of which require regular
consultations with medical specialists, including his treating surgeons and
physicians. Given these chronic medical conditions and the risk of
complications or adverse effects from ongoing tuberculosis treatment, the
petitioner is considered to fall under a high-risk medical category. Continued
incarceration, under such circumstances, is said to be adversely affecting his
physical and mental health. The Respondent does not seriously dispute the
above medical submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The record also
reflects that the petitioner is approximately 68 years of age, and it is not
unusual for individuals of his age to suffer from multiple health conditions of
this nature.
16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has fully cooperated with the investigation agency throughout the
investigation. While the prosecution argued that there is a flight risk in the
event of the petitioner’s release on bail, the material on record prima facie
indicates that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and
submitted the required documents. The petitioner has been in judicial custody
for over five months. It is also brought to the notice of this court that upon
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge
sheet. In these circumstances, the continued detention of the petitioner is no
longer warranted.
8
17. A perusal of the material on record demonstrates that the petitioner has
cooperated fully with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating
Officer and submitting the requisite documents. The Investigating Officer has
since completed the investigation, filing the charge sheet after examining as
many as 292 witnesses and exhibiting 954 documents.
18. In Garima Gupta V. State3, the High Court of Delhi held that:
15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly
be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial.
Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is
ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in
custody Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the
fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case of
course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important
factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the
Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of
his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail.
A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in
Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and
even his name in the Bastille.
19. In Sanjay Chandra V. CBI4, wherein a two-Judge Bench, while dealing
with the bail applications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : (SCC p.
52, paras 21-23)
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is
neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered
a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect
to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody
pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time
to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held
in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial, but in such
cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite
3
2021 0 Supreme(Del) 538
4
(2012) 1 SCC 40
9
contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution
that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which,
he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be
deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for
any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment
as a lesson.”
20. It is observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections
in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is
the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better
position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in
custody. As a presumably innocent person, he is therefore entitled to freedom
and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent
person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
21. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the
trial’s outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time.
Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt
or innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the
accused would tamper with the prosecution’s evidence or intimidate witnesses
cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the
accused has attempted such tampering/intimidation.
22. The petitioner’s continued preventive custody cannot be based on an
unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked vis-à-vis pre-trial custody,
coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the
other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further
pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance with the terms
10
and conditions mentioned in this order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
has a permanent abode; there is no possibility of fleeing from justice.
23. This court views that unless exceptional circumstances are brought to
the notice of the court which may defeat the proper investigation and fair trial,
the court will not decline bail to a person who is not accused of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the present case, no such
exceptional circumstances have been brought to the notice of this court which
may defeat a proper investigation to decline bail to the petitioner.
24. As seen from the record, the Police filed the charge sheet after
completion of the investigation. Thus, the Petitioner/Accused is no longer
required for the investigation. So, the release of the accused would not
hamper the investigation. It is uncertain when the trial in the present case will
commence. There is no material to show that the grant of bail to the petitioner
would defeat the ends of justice. Nothing on the record suggests that the
Accused will likely commit an offence if released on bail.
25. For the reasons stated above, this court views that bail can be granted
to the petitioner/A.2 with the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner/A.2 shall be released on bail on executing a personal
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special
Judge for SPE and ACB Cases – cum – Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nellore.
(b) On release, the Petitioner/A.2 shall appear before the Investigating
Officer concerned once in a month between 10.00 AM and 01.00
PM for six (06) months.
(c) The Petitioner/A.2 shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten
the witnesses under any circumstances. Any such attempt shall be
construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses and shall not
11tamper with evidence. The Petitioner/A. 2 shall cooperate with the
investigation.
(d) The petitioner/A.2 shall not leave India without the prior permission
of the court concerned.
(e) It is made clear that the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with
the conditions mentioned above. Any breach of the above
conditions shall be viewed seriously, and the prosecution shall be
at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail. However, nothing
stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of
the case.
26. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 15.07.2025
SAK
12
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6962 of 2025
Date: 15.07.2025
SAK
[ad_1]
Source link