Court Cites Ongoing Investigation and Seriousness of Allegations in Bail Rejection
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J., has dismissed the bail application of Kanduru Chinnappanna, accused in a high-profile case involving the supply of adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). The decision, rendered on December 15, 2025, emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the critical stage of the ongoing investigation.
The case revolves around the alleged supply of substandard and adulterated ghee by M/s AR Dairy Food Private Limited, Dindigul, to TTD, violating tender agreements and impacting the religious sentiments of devotees. Investigations have revealed that the ghee contained adulterants, including lard, prompting a deeper probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, accused of demanding bribes and amassing disproportionate assets, argued for bail on the grounds of innocence and cooperation with the investigation. However, the prosecution opposed the plea, highlighting the petitioner's alleged non-cooperation, risk of absconding, and potential interference with the investigation.
The court, referencing several Supreme Court judgments, underscored the principles governing bail in cases of economic offenses and public trust violations. It stressed that the nature of the offense, potential punishment, and societal interest must be weighed against individual liberty. The ongoing investigation's importance, particularly in uncovering a larger conspiracy, was deemed critical, leading to the bail's denial.
The judgment reaffirms the judiciary's cautious approach in cases involving serious allegations and the potential impact on public confidence and religious sentiments.
Bottom Line:
Bail application must be assessed considering gravity of offense, evidence, and societal interest; economic offenses and cases involving public trust require stricter scrutiny before granting bail.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 480 and 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), and 299 read with 49 and 3(5); Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Sections 51 and 59.
Kanduru Chinnappanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825900
