APHC010348552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5606 OF 2026 Between: 1. Sanjay Chouhan, S/o Brahamapal,Aged about 43 years, R/o Jaitpur Kalan,Saharanpur, Jasmour, Saharanpur District,Uttar Pradesh State. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. 2. The State of AP, through The Investigation Officer,Special Investigation Team SIT,Additional Superintendent of Police Admn, Tirupati. 3. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation CBI,15-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi - 110003. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondents: P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Counsel for the Respondents:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND APHC010348782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5607 OF 2026 Between: 1. Shabbil Kalimulla Khan Alias Sameer, S/o Late Kalimulla Khan, aged about 40 years,R/o 16-957, Near Union Bank,Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Srikalahasti, Tirupati, tirupati District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. 2. The State of AP, through The Investigation Officer,Special Investigation Team SIT, Additional Superintendent of Police Admn, Tirupati. 3. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation CBI,15-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi - 110003. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondents: P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Counsel for the Respondents:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 8 and 13 seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.470 of 2024 on the file of Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 274, 275, 299, 318(3), 318(4), 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Section 120-B, 272, 273, 295(A), 418, 420, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’), read with Section 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the PC Act) (as amended in 2018) against Accused No.8 and under Section 61(2), 274, 275, 299, 318 (3), 318 (4), 49 r/w 3 (5) BNS, & Sec. 120-B, 272, 273, 295(A), 418, 420, 109 r/w 34 of ‘the IPC’, r/w Sec. 8, 9 & 10 of PC Act 1988 (As amended in 2018) against Accused No.13. 2. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. The prosecution case against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 8 and 13 is that they were associated with the affairs of the respective companies allegedly involved in the supply of ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). Accused No. 8 was working as Plant Executive Officer and Transport In-charge in M/s Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialities Pvt. Ltd. (A6 Company) and was allegedly looking after transportation and logistics operations relating to the procurement and supply of ghee. Accused No. 13 was working as an Operator in M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Pvt. Ltd. (A7 Company). The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with the other accused, acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy relating to the supply of adulterated and substandard ghee to TTD. 4. It is specifically alleged against Accused No. 8 that, during the investigation conducted by the SIT, his active involvement in the alleged conspiracy came to light. According to the prosecution, he was not a mere employee, but actively participated in the affairs of the company and had knowledge of the procurement, transportation and supply chain of the ghee supplied to TTD. It is further alleged that he supervised the transportation of adulterated ghee procured from M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Pvt. Ltd. (A7) through A6 Company to TTD, participated in the falsification of records relating to milk procurement and ghee production, and facilitated the movement and delivery of the alleged adulterated ghee. The prosecution also alleges that he was involved in the preparation of false invoices and records, instructed the staff to delete conversations and other electronic records relating to procurement, advised them not to disclose the true facts to FSSAI officials during inspections, and that steps were taken under his supervision to destroy material evidence, including carton boxes, with a view to screening the offenders. As regards to Accused No.13, he was employed as an Operator in the manufacturing unit of A7 Company, from where the allegedly adulterated ghee originated, and was associated with the day-to-day operations of the plant. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, appearing for the petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 13, contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. He submitted that Accused No.8 was working as Transport In-charge/Plant Executive Officer in A6 Company and Accused No.13 was working as an Operator in A7 Company, and that their implication is primarily based on their employment without any specific overt act establishing their participation in the alleged offences. He contended that neither petitioner had ownership or independent decision-making authority in the affairs of the respective companies, nor is there any specific material to show that they personally participated in the alleged adulteration, fabrication of documents, conspiracy or derived any pecuniary benefit from the alleged transactions. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the charge sheet does not disclose any direct or legally admissible material establishing the active involvement of the petitioners in the alleged conspiracy. He submitted that the allegations against Accused No.8 relating to transportation, deletion of electronic records, falsification of documents and concealment of evidence are not supported by independent material establishing his conscious participation. Insofar as Accused No.13 is concerned, it was submitted that his duties were confined to operating machinery under the supervision and control of his superior officers, and no specific overt act is attributed to him in relation to procurement, manufacture, quality control, transportation or supply of the alleged adulterated ghee. No incriminating material or proceeds of crime were recovered from either of the petitioners. 7. The learned Senior Counsel furthermore submitted that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and that the investigation has already been substantially completed and the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. All relevant documentary and electronic evidence, laboratory reports, statements and material objects are already in the custody of the investigating agency/Court. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, and there is no possibility of their tampering with the evidence, influencing the witnesses or obstructing the proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents having deep roots in society, have no criminal antecedents, and are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 8. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that several co-accused, including Accused Nos.2 to 5, 12 and 15, have already been granted bail by this Court and that the role attributed to the petitioners is not more serious than that of the said co-accused. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of parity. He further submitted that though the earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by order dated 19.09.2025, the investigation has since been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, constituting a change in circumstances, prays for grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners. 9. Per contra, Mr. P.S.P Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, filed counters and submitted that the investigation revealed the active involvement of the petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 13 in the alleged offences. It was submitted that Accused No.8 was working as Plant Executive Officer and was looking after the ghee and transport section of M/s Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Private Limited (A-6), while Accused No.13 was working as an Operator in the plant of M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited (A- 7). According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, the petitioners, in furtherance of the conspiracy with the other accused, actively participated in the procurement, preparation, transportation and supply of adulterated ghee to TTD. It was contended that Accused No.8 supervised the transportation of adulterated ghee and participated in falsification of records, whereas Accused No.13, being an Operator, knowingly participated in mixing refined oils, chemicals and other adulterants with a minimal quantity of ghee for preparation of adulterated ghee and for adjusting the laboratory test values and maintaining the required aroma. 10. He further submitted that the adulterated ghee was thereafter supplied through A-6 and A-1 to TTD and that the petitioners, along with the other accused, participated in the said activities while attempting to conceal the same from the concerned authorities. It was also contended that Accused No.8 instructed the staff to delete WhatsApp chats and conceal the procurement of ghee from A-7 from the FSSAI officials, while the mobile phone used by Accused No.13 during the relevant period, which allegedly contained crucial evidence, was not produced before the investigating agency and was stated to have been destroyed to conceal the alleged acts. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is prima facie material establishing the active involvement of both the petitioners in the alleged offences and that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, they are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 12. 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 petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 13. As seen from the record, the petitioners were initially summoned in connection with the investigation and were subsequently arraigned as Accused Nos.8 and 13 upon the investigating agency allegedly finding their involvement in the offences. Accused No.8 was working as Plant Executive Officer of M/s Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Private Limited (A-6), whereas Accused No.13 was working as an Operator in M/s Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited (A-7), from where the prosecution alleges that adulterated ghee was supplied to TTD. The prosecution alleges that both the petitioners had a role in the larger conspiracy relating to the preparation, transportation and supply of adulterated ghee to TTD. 14. It is further seen from the record that, after registration of the crime, the investigating agency made several attempts to secure the presence of Accused No.8 for the purpose of examination. Notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, was prepared and communicated to him on 27.01.2025. On 28.01.2025, when the police visited his residence at Srikalahasti, he was not found and the notice was pasted on the door of the house requiring his attendance for examination. Thereafter, on 12.02.2025, the investigating agency visited Mumbai for service of notice at his residence, where his wife received the notice, but the petitioner did not appear before the investigating agency. Subsequently, on 18.02.2025, the police visited his native village in Uttar Pradesh and, as he was not found there, the notice was received by his mother. The record further discloses that even after dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by Accused No.8 in Crl.P.No.420 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, by order dated 19.09.2025, the investigating agency continued its efforts to secure his presence. On 14.10.2025, the police visited his wife's residence at Mumbai and, as he was not found, notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, was served on his wife and thereafter on his brothers. Again, on 30.10.2025, the police visited the residence of his father- in-law at Mumbai and, in his absence, served notice on his wife, and on 31.10.2025, the police visited Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, where he was not found and notices were served on his sisters-in-law. Thus, the material on record indicates that repeated efforts were made by the investigating agency to secure the presence of Accused No.8, but he did not appear before the investigating agency for examination. 15. It is also evident from the record that, in the course of investigation, the investigating agency allegedly collected material regarding the involvement of the petitioners and thereafter arrayed them as Accused Nos.8 and 13. The investigating agency, after conducting investigation against Accused Nos.1 to 5, filed the first charge sheet on 06.05.2025 and subsequently filed a supplementary charge sheet on 23.01.2026 incorporating the material collected against the other accused, including the present petitioners. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the supplementary charge sheet on 04.07.2026. The prosecution, therefore, contends that the petitioners were not merely implicated on the basis of their employment, but were arraigned as accused after their alleged involvement came to light in the course of investigation. 16. In view of the above circumstances, the conduct of Accused No.8 in not appearing before the investigating agency despite repeated notices and efforts to secure his presence, coupled with the allegations regarding his role as Plant Executive Officer and his alleged involvement in the transportation and supply of adulterated ghee, is a circumstance which requires consideration while examining the prayer for anticipatory bail. At the same time, the fact that the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet and that cognizance has already been taken by the learned Trial Court. Though custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required at this stage, the material collected in the course of investigation discloses prima facie well-founded allegations against the petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged offences. The conduct of Accused No.8 in not appearing before the investigating agency despite repeated notices and efforts to secure his presence, coupled with the specific roles attributed to both the petitioners in the alleged conspiracy, also requires consideration. 17. It is also contended that Accused No.13 had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No.3831 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by order dated 29.04.2025, taking note of the serious nature of the accusations and his role as a Machine Operator in M/s. Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Private Limited. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu1, wherein, at paragraph No. 6, it was held as under: 6.As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge. 18. Thus, in G.R.Ananda Babu supra, it was held that successive anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. A mere change in 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 circumstances is not a valid ground once an earlier pre-arrest bail application has been rejected by a reasoned order. 19. In spite of repeated efforts by the investigating agency to secure his presence by issuing notices under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, including attempts to serve such notices through his family members and with the assistance of the local police at his native village, Accused No.13 allegedly remained absent and did not cooperate with the investigation. The prosecution, therefore, contends that the repeated failure of Accused No.13 to appear before the investigating agency and his alleged avoidance of examination, despite sincere efforts to secure his presence, are circumstances requiring consideration while examining his prayer for anticipatory bail, particularly in the context of eliciting facts within his knowledge relating to the alleged larger conspiracy. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for grant of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, there are no merits in the present petitions. 20. It is also relevant to note that this Court has already considered the bail applications of some of the co-accused in the same crime and dismissed the same. This Court dismissed the bail applications of Accused Nos. 16, 24 and 29 in Crl.P.Nos. 13183 of 2025, 12357 of 2025, and 13409 of 2025, respectively, by orders dated 03.01.2026,15.12.2025, and 21.01.2026. 21. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.8 and 13 and the prima facie material collected in the course of investigation, and accusations on them are well founded, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the Petitioners, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab 2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi) 3. Hence, these Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.08.2026 JLSR (1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 51 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5606 and 5607 of 2026 Date:13.07.2026 JLSR