Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ajay Kumar Sugandh vs State Through The Investigating ... on 23 January, 2026
APHC010691672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13183/2025
Between:
1.AJAY KUMAR SUGANDH, S/O SH. JEET RAI SUGANDH,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUGANDH OIL CHEMICALS, 2/53B, NORTH
AVENUE ROAD, LAXMI MARKET, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-
110026 AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 96, HARSH VIHAR, PITAMPURA,
PS-RANIBAGH, NEW DELHI - 110034 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT
OF 171, HARSH VIHAR, PITAMPURA, PS RANIBAGH, NEW DELHI-
110034 CURRENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN CENTRAL JAIL
(NELLORE)
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.STATE THROUGH THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT) ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, TIRUPATI
2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.VENKAT CHALLA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI
2
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.16 on bail in Cr.No.470 of 2024 of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.16 herein and some other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 274, 275, 299, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 238, and Section 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS'), Sections 120-B, 272, 273, 295A, 409, 418, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C.,') and Sections 7, 8, 9 & 10 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the P.C.Act').
2. Provenance of the case of the prosecution is that, M/s A.R. Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in collusion with certain other accused, committed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust with common intention supplying adulterated and substandard cow ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), thereby causing wrongful loss to the institution and deliberately hurting the religious sentiments of Hindu devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy; that despite the tender conditions mandating supply of 10 lakh kilograms of Agmark Special Grade cow ghee pursuant to the tender notification dated 12.03.2024, finalized on 08.05.2024 and supply order issued 3 on 15.05.2024, the accused supplied four tankers of ghee on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 25.06.2024 and 04.07.2024 which, upon confidential testing at NDDB CALF Laboratory, Anand, Gujarat, was found to be adulterated with vegetable and animal fat-based substances including lard, thereby violated the tender agreement clauses and committed acts of deception for wrongful gain; and basing upon the said laboratory report dated 12.07.2024, the complainant, P.Murali Krishna, General Manager (Procurement), TTD, lodged a complaint on 25.09.2024 before the Station House Officer, East Police Station, Tirupati.
3. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Venkat Challa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the arrest of Accused No.16 is not merely irregular but is a grave illegality striking at the very root of constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner was repeatedly served with notices under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS', which he scrupulously complied with by appearing before the investigating authorities, furnishing documents, and cooperating with the inquiry. The issuance of such notices itself presupposes that the investigating agency had concluded that arrest was not necessary. In such circumstances, the subsequent arrest without obtaining prior judicial sanction under Section 35(6) of 'the BNSS' amounts to a blatant violation of statutory safeguards. The arrest memo and remand report are conspicuously silent on this crucial aspect, thereby demonstrating that the arrest was 4 affected in complete disregard of the law of the land. The deprivation of liberty in this manner is wholly unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the remand order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge is vitiated by non-application of mind and suffers from manifest perversity. The order records incorrect facts, fails to acknowledge the presence of the Petitioner's counsel, and does not reflect any consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. The Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, in a mechanical manner, granted judicial custody without examining whether the statutory requirements for arrest and remand had been satisfied. The remand order is thus founded upon misrepresentations made by the investigating agency and is devoid of any independent judicial scrutiny. Such an order, passed late at night without proper deliberation, undermines the sanctity of judicial process and results in serious miscarriage of justice.
5. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner was initially treated as a witness, his premises were searched, and no incriminating material was recovered. He voluntarily furnished GST returns, invoices, and ledger accounts spanning several years, which clearly establish that he is a trader of refined oils and chemicals. The allegation that he supplied chemicals in place of refined oil is wholly baseless, fabricated, and unsupported by any documentary or physical evidence. The records produced by the Petitioner demonstrate regular trading in refined oils with various entities, including 5 Harsh Traders and Harsh Foodz. The attempt of the investigating agency to fasten liability upon the Petitioner for the alleged adulteration of ghee supplied to TTD is therefore wholly misconceived and unsustainable.
6. Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that the Petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory and arbitrary treatment. Accused No.17, who was similarly placed, was spared arrest merely because he acceded to the coercive demands of the investigating agency and made a false statement as desired by them. The Petitioner, on the other hand, was arrested solely because he refused to make a false confession and insisted upon maintaining the truth. Such differential treatment between similarly situated individuals is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, and violative of the principle of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to reward falsehood and punish truthfulness.
7. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the offences alleged against the Petitioner do not attract the rigours of Section 316(5) of 'the BNSS' (erstwhile Section 409 of 'the I.P.C.,') or the provisions of 'the P.C.Act.,' as the Petitioner is neither a public servant nor connected with TTD. The invocation of these provisions against him is legally untenable and amounts to abuse of process. The settled position of law is that penal provisions must be strictly construed, and their application cannot be extended to individuals who do not fall within their ambit. The attempt of the investigating agency to apply these provisions to the Petitioner is therefore wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected.
6
8. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that the investigation qua the principal accused persons was concluded in May 2025, and all of them have already been enlarged on bail. The Petitioner's alleged role, even if taken at face value, is remote and unconnected with the supplies made to TTD. The prosecution case is that the Petitioner supplied refined oils to Harsh Traders and Harsh Foodz, who in turn supplied products to other entities, which ultimately reached TTD. Even if this chain is accepted, there is nothing to suggest that the Petitioner had knowledge of the end use of his products or that he was complicit in adulteration. By no stretch of imagination can liability for adulteration of ghee supplied to TTD be fastened upon the Petitioner.
9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the arrest of the Petitioner is in direct violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was categorically held that arrest should not be made in a routine manner and that statutory safeguards must be strictly adhered to. The Petitioner's arrest, despite his cooperation and compliance with notices under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS', is a flagrant violation of this binding precedent. The SIT has acted in complete disregard of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thereby rendering the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.
10. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel also points out that the allegations of non-cooperation, evasive replies, and potential tampering of evidence are wholly unsubstantiated. The Petitioner has consistently joined 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 7 investigation, produced documents, and answered queries truthfully. The vague assertions of the SIT cannot justify curtailment of liberty, particularly when no material evidence supports such claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India2 has held that liberty cannot be curtailed based on subjective satisfaction of the investigating agency without tangible material. The arrest of the Petitioner in the present case is therefore wholly illegal and unsustainable.
11. Learned Senior counsel prays that the Petitioner, who has been wrongfully incarcerated, be enlarged on bail. The continued detention of the Petitioner serves no purpose, as investigation against the principal accused is complete, and there is no likelihood of the Petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation, and his liberty deserves protection under the constitutional mandate. Bail ought to be granted to restore the Petitioner's fundamental rights and to prevent further miscarriage of justice.
12. Per contra, Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present petition filed by Accused No.16 is a calculated attempt to secure liberty despite the existence of overwhelming incriminating material. The petitioner seeks to portray himself as a mere trader in oils and chemicals, but the investigation has revealed that he was not engaged in bona fide trade but in a deliberate and fraudulent scheme of supplying prohibited chemical 2 (2024) 7 SCC 576 8 substances under false invoices. The petitioner's conduct is not an isolated act of negligence but a conscious and deliberate participation in a conspiracy of grave magnitude, which has shaken the faith of millions of devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy.
13. It is further submitted that the petitioner's role is not peripheral but central. He knowingly supplied monoglycerides and acetic acid esters under the guise of edible oils such as coconut oil and palm oil. These substances were subsequently used in the adulteration of ghee meant for sacred prasadam. The deliberate falsification of invoices demonstrates mens rea and conscious participation in the conspiracy. The petitioner cannot claim innocence when the very invoices raised by his firm conceal the true nature of the chemicals supplied.
14. Learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that the sanctity of the prasadam of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy is not an ordinary matter of commerce but a matter of deep religious faith. The petitioner's actions, therefore, transcend mere economic offences and amount to sacrilege, hurting religious sentiments and endangering public health. The gravity of the offence is compounded by the fact that adulterated ghee was supplied for preparation of laddus, thereby endangering public health and religious sentiments simultaneously.
15. Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner colluded with principal conspirators Pomil Jain (A-3) and Vipin Jain (A-4), who were directors of entities directly engaged in adulteration. The 9 invoices raised by the petitioner's firm, M/s Sugandh Oil & Chemicals, were deliberately falsified to conceal the true nature of the chemicals supplied. This collusion is not speculative but is evidenced by financial trails, witness statements, and documentary evidence.
16. It is urged that the petitioner's conduct demonstrates a deliberate attempt to deceive regulatory authorities and the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). The petitioner's actions strike at the very sanctity of the prasadam, which is not an ordinary commodity, but a sacred offering consumed by millions of devotees. The petitioner's fraudulent conduct, therefore, amounts to a direct assault on religious sentiments and public health.
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that during the investigation, SIT officials observed blue colour iron drums loaded with material with peeled- off labels lying on the ground in the petitioner's godown premises. Upon verifying the labels, it was found that the drums contained monoglycerides manufactured by IL SHIN WELLS CO. LTD., Korea, and imported by Raghubir Saran Overseas, New Delhi. This discovery clearly establishes that the petitioner was in possession of prohibited chemical substances, which were subsequently supplied under false invoices.
18. It is further contended that the petitioner deliberately issued false and fake invoices with mala fide intention to conceal the true nature of the chemical substances being supplied for adulteration. The petitioner's conduct demonstrates a deliberate attempt to mislead authorities and to facilitate 10 adulteration of ghee meant for sacred prasadam. The petitioner's actions, therefore, amount to a deliberate and conscious participation in a criminal conspiracy.
19. Learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner's conduct cannot be dismissed as mere negligence or inadvertence. The deliberate falsification of invoices, the possession of prohibited chemical substances, and the collusion with principal conspirators demonstrate a conscious and deliberate participation in a criminal conspiracy. The petitioner's actions, therefore, amount to a deliberate and conscious participation in a criminal conspiracy of grave magnitude.
20. It is contended that the petitioner's role cannot be trivialised as a mere supplier of goods. The investigation has revealed that the invoices raised by his firm were not innocent clerical errors, but deliberate falsifications intended to disguise the true nature of the substances supplied. By describing monoglycerides and acetic acid esters as "refined coconut oil" or "palm oil,"
the petitioner consciously misled both the purchasing entities and the regulatory authorities. This act of misrepresentation is not only fraudulent in nature but also evidences a clear mens rea, thereby bringing the petitioner squarely within the ambit of criminal conspiracy.
21. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner's conduct must be viewed in the broader context of the conspiracy. The adulterated ghee was ultimately used in the preparation of sacred prasadam, which is consumed by millions of devotees. The petitioner, by knowingly 11 supplying chemicals that were unsuitable for human consumption, facilitated the adulteration process and thereby endangered public health. This is not a case of a commercial dispute or a minor irregularity in trade; it is a grave offence that undermines both religious sanctity and consumer safety. The petitioner's actions, therefore, assume a dimension far more serious than ordinary economic offences.
22. Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner's evasive behaviour during investigation further strengthens the inference of guilt. Despite repeated notices, he failed to produce his mobile phone and other electronic devices used during the relevant period, and he gave evasive replies when questioned about them. Such conduct demonstrates a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence and obstruct the investigation. The petitioner's non-cooperation is not a mere procedural lapse but a conscious stratagem to conceal incriminating material. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation was not only justified but necessary to unravel the larger conspiracy and to secure crucial evidence.
23. Learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner's conduct cannot be dismissed as mere negligence or inadvertence. The deliberate falsification of invoices, the possession of prohibited chemical substances, and the collusion with principal conspirators demonstrate a conscious and deliberate participation in a criminal conspiracy. The petitioner's actions, therefore, amount to a deliberate and conscious participation in a criminal conspiracy of grave magnitude.
12
24. It is further contended by the Learned Public Prosecutor that the averments made in paragraph 22 of the petition are matters of record, yet the petitioner seeks to distort their import to his advantage. The order dated 18.11.2025 of this Hon'ble Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner's wife was a limited direction permitting the trial court to independently adjudicate the bail application on its own merits, without prejudice to the pending writ. The prosecution respectfully submits that such directions cannot be construed as a blanket protection or immunity from investigation. The trial court, in faithful compliance with the mandate of this Hon'ble Court, heard the bail application expeditiously and dismissed it by a detailed order dated 08.12.2025. Thus, the petitioner's attempt to rely upon the writ proceedings as a shield against his own complicity is misconceived, untenable, and contrary to the spirit of the judicial directions issued. The prosecution therefore asserts that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the pendency of the writ petition, and his present plea for bail is wholly unsustainable.
25. It is further contended that the petitioner's repeated evasions during investigation, his failure to produce the mobile phone and other electronic devices used during the relevant period, and his deliberate withholding of crucial records, all point to a conscious effort to obstruct justice. The prosecution submits that such conduct cannot be condoned by granting bail, for it demonstrates a propensity to tamper with evidence and frustrate the ongoing investigation. The petitioner's non-cooperation is not a mere 13 procedural lapse but a deliberate stratagem to conceal incriminating material, which necessitated his custodial interrogation.
26. Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner's arrest on 07.11.2025 was not arbitrary but was made strictly in accordance with law, after credible material indicated his role in the conspiracy. The remand order passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore was based on due consideration of the gravity of the offence and the material on record. The rejection of bail by the trial court on 08.12.2025 was by a detailed and reasoned order, which itself demonstrates that the petitioner's case does not merit indulgence.
27. It is urged that the offences alleged are of grave economic and social consequence. The petitioner's conduct has not only defrauded a religious institution but has also endangered public health and hurt the sentiments of crores of devotees. The conspiracy is wide-ranging, involving multiple entities and individuals across states, and the investigation is still at a crucial stage. Grant of bail at this juncture would seriously prejudice the investigation, embolden other conspirators, and undermine public confidence in the justice system. The prosecution, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition, affirm the order of the learned Trial Court, and direct that the petitioner remain in judicial custody until the investigation reaches its logical conclusion.
14
28. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
29. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal point now meriting for consideration is:
"Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?"
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor3, at para No.9, held that while exercising discretion in bail matters, courts are entitled to consider the potential risk of the accused obstructing the course of justice. The examination of criminal antecedents is a rational exercise, particularly to gauge the propensity of reoffending during the period of bail. The Court affirmed that reliance on criminal history in determining bail is a relevant and justified safeguard to protect societal interests.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi4, at para No.8 held that the grant of bail must be exercised judiciously, guided by settled principles and the facts of each case, and not in an arbitrary manner. The Court emphasized that relevant considerations include the nature of the accusation and supporting evidence, the severity of the punishment, the character of the accused, the risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses, and the larger public interest. At the stage of bail, the inquiry is confined to whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that a prima facie case is made out.
3(1978) 1 SCC 240 4 (2001) 4 SCC 280 15
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh5, at para No.3 held that held that the power to grant bail is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously and supported by cogent reasons. The Court clarified that bail decisions are fact- specific, and the social status of the accused is not determinative. The nature and gravity of the offence remain paramount considerations, with heinous crimes warranting heightened caution in the exercise of bail discretion.
33. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chattergee6, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.9 held that while ordinarily it does not interfere with High Court orders on bail, the High Court must exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and in line with settled principles. The relevant factors include: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation, (iii) severity of punishment, (iv) risk of absconding, (v) character and antecedents of the accused, (vi) likelihood of reoffending, (vii) apprehension of witness tampering, and (viii) danger of justice being thwarted.
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation7 at para Nos.34 and 35 held that economic offences constitute a distinct class requiring a stricter approach to bail, given their serious impact on public funds and the national economy. Such offences, often involving deep- rooted conspiracies, pose grave threats to financial stability. Accordingly, while considering bail, courts must weigh the nature of 5 (2002) 3 SCC 598 6 (2010) 14 SCC 496 7 (2013) 7 SCC 439 16 the accusations and supporting evidence, the severity of punishment, the character of the accused, the risk of absconding or witness tampering, and the overarching public interest.
35. In this regard, it is apposite and profitable to refer to the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI8, where the entire law on grant of bails was discussed. At paragraph Nos.16, 17, 22 to 25, it is held as under:
"16. Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable so as to indicate application of mind to the matter under consideration and the reasons for conclusion. Recording of reasons is necessary since the accused/prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail. This will also help the appellate court to appreciate and consider the reasonings for grant or refusal to grant bail. But giving reasons for exercise of discretion in granting or refusing to grant bail is different from discussing the merits or demerits of the case. At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. Observing that "at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided", in Niranjan Singh [Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559), it was held in para No.3 as under:
"3. ... Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself."
17. In the present case, in the impugned judgment, paras 52 to 75 relate to the findings on the merits of the prosecution case. As discussed earlier, at the stage of considering the application for bail, detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution case and the merits or demerits of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, should be avoided. It is, therefore, made clear that the findings of the High Court in paras 52 to 75 be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of refusal to grant bail and the same shall not in any way influence the trial or other proceedings.
8 (2020) 13 SCC 337 17
22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk" of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straitjacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.
23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, it was held as under :
(SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-
settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338)"
24. Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of bail, in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13: it was held as under: (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16) "16. ... The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 and basically they are -- the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of 18 witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
25. After referring to para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was held at para 18 as under:
"18. It is well-settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.""
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar9, at para No.35 held that while individual liberty is of paramount importance, Courts must equally weigh the seriousness of the accusations when supported by adequate material. The grant of bail must be founded on a reasoned prima facie assessment of the essential facts on record. The Court emphasized that the nature of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the severity of punishment upon conviction are crucial considerations in the exercise of bail discretion.
9 (2022) 4 SCC 497 19
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan10 at para Nos.37 and 38 held that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing the nature of the alleged crime with the need to secure a fair trial. While elaborate reasoning is not required, a bail order must disclose relevant reasons and cannot be unreasoned. A perverse order or one ignoring material facts is open to appellate challenge or cancellation upon subsequent developments.
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaibunisha v. Meharban11, at paragraph No.25 held that bail cannot be granted without due regard to material aspects of the case. The Court emphasized that relevant considerations include the nature of allegations, severity of punishment upon conviction, risk of witness influence or evidence tampering, frivolity of prosecution, criminal antecedents of the accused, and the Court's prima facie satisfaction supporting the charge.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar12, at paragraph No.16 held that bail adjudication, including cancellation, depends on the unique facts of each case. It observed that interference with or attempts to obstruct the administration of justice, or evasion of due process, amount to abuse of the concession of bail.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajastan13 at para Nos.24 and 25 held that while individual liberty is fundamental, bail 10 (2022) 3 SCC 501 11 (2022) 5 SCC 465 12 (2023) 13 SCC 549 13 (2023) 18 SCC 753 20 decisions must reflect a reasoned prima facie assessment of the accusations supported by material on record. Elaborate reasoning or detailed examination of merits is unnecessary at the initial stage; however, bail orders must consider key factors such as the gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, risk of witness influence or evidence tampering, criminal antecedents, and overall prima facie satisfaction.
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi)14, held while culling out the principles for grant of bail at paragraph No.19 it is held that that at the bail stage, courts must not undertake a detailed evaluation of prosecution evidence or adjudicate its merits. A bail order must reflect due application of mind and consideration of relevant factors laid down by this Court. An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained only on grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or failure to consider material aspects like gravity of the offence and impact of the crime. The subsequent conduct of the accused is relevant only in cancellation proceedings, not in appeal, which must not be used as a retaliatory measure.
42. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after extensively examining the principles governing grant and cancellation of bail, set aside the bail granted to the accused. The Court underscored that bail orders must conform to established legal norms and cannot be sustained where they disregard material considerations or result in miscarriage of justice. 14 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 15 2025 INSC 979 21
43. In Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos.67 and 78 held that, given the gravity of the offence and the accused's modus operandi, the High Court erred in granting bail in a perfunctory manner without adequate safeguards, which enabled the accused to abscond and jeopardize the trial. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to balance the accused's right to personal liberty with the societal interest by not imposing essential conditions such as periodic reporting to the police. It reiterated that the true test of judicial discretion in bail matters lies in striking a fair equilibrium between individual rights and societal concerns, based on the facts of each case.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki supra at para No.63 held that individual liberty, though fundamental, cannot be exalted to the extent of causing disorder or undermining law and order. Bail decisions must embody a reasoned application of mind and adherence to established legal principles, rather than mechanical or formulaic approaches. The Court emphasized that liberty functions within the bounds of law and carries with it the responsibility to safeguard social tranquillity and public safety.
45. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pinki supra at para No.64, relying on its earlier decision in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh17, held that personal liberty, though precious, is neither absolute nor unrestrained. It must operate within limits so as not to imperil the life or liberty of others, and society cannot countenance conduct that is anti- social or detrimental to the collective good. 16
2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 17 (2012) 9 SCC 446 22
46. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are of grave magnitude, involving deliberate adulteration of ghee intended for sacred prasadam of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy. The material collected during investigation, including falsified invoices, possession of prohibited chemical substances, and collusion with principal conspirators, clearly discloses a prima facie case of conscious participation in a criminal conspiracy. In offences of such seriousness, where public health and religious sentiments are directly endangered, the grant of bail would send a deleterious message and undermine the sanctity of the judicial process.
47. The petitioner's role is not peripheral but central. He knowingly supplied monoglycerides and acetic acid esters under the guise of edible oils, which were subsequently used in adulteration. The deliberate falsification of invoices demonstrates mens rea and conscious participation. The petitioner cannot claim innocence when the very documents emanating from his firm conceal the true nature of the substances supplied. Such conduct is not a mere irregularity in trade but a deliberate fraud, thereby disentitling the petitioner from the discretionary relief of bail.
48. The petitioner's conduct during investigation has been evasive and obstructive. Inspite of repeated notices, he failed to produce his mobile phone and other electronic devices used during the relevant period, and he gave evasive replies when questioned. Such behaviour demonstrates a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence and obstruct the investigation. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation was not only justified but necessary to 23 unravel the larger conspiracy. This Court is of the considered view that releasing the petitioner at this stage would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation.
49. The fact that the petitioner was first treated as a witness does not, by itself, bar his subsequent arraignment as an accused. It is well settled that a person may be summoned as a witness, but upon emergence of incriminating material, he may lawfully be made an accused. The investigation has revealed fresh material, financial trails, and witness statements disclosing the petitioner's active role.
50. The petitioner cannot claim entitlement to bail solely on the ground that other accused have been released, as the principle of parity is not determinative in his case. Bail is not a matter of parity but of role-specific consideration. The petitioner's conduct, unlike certain other accused, demonstrates deliberate falsification of invoices and supply of prohibited chemicals. Petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary, and his role is distinct and more culpable. The principle of parity cannot be invoked to dilute the seriousness of his involvement.
51. The remand order dated 07.11.2025 was passed after due consideration of the material on record and cannot be said to be mechanical or perverse. The learned Trial Court, upon examining the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's conduct, rightly remanded him to judicial custody. The subsequent rejection of bail on 08.12.2025 was by a detailed and reasoned order. The orders suffer from no infirmity, and the pendency of the writ petition 24 filed by the petitioner's wife cannot be invoked to claim immunity from investigation or arrest.
52. In conclusion, the Court holds that the offences alleged are of grave economic and social consequence, involving fraud upon a religious institution and endangering public health. The conspiracy is wide-ranging, involving multiple entities and individuals across states, and the investigation is still at a crucial stage. Grant of bail at this juncture would seriously prejudice the investigation, embolden other conspirators, and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
53. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this point of time. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
54. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.01.2026 VTS