Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail In Case Pertaining To Irregularities In Evaluation Of Exam Papers
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied bail to the former Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Representative of the private entity (M/s. Camsign Media Private Limited) entrusted with evaluation of the Answer Scripts.
The Court was considering Bail Applications filed by both of them in a case registered for criminal breach of trust and irregularities in the manual evaluation process.
The Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava observed, “It is an admitted legal position that in cases relating to grant of bail, the Court has to bear in mind the nature of allegations made against the accused, the punishment if convicted, and the character of the accused whether the presence of the Accused would be secured during the course of trial and is there a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered…..Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and since the investigation is at threshold stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners i.e., A-1 & A-2 in Cr. No.469 of 2024 on bail.”
The Applicant was represented by Advocate S. Nagesh Reddy, while the Respondent was represented by the Public Prosecutor.
Facts of the Case
The allegations were that the Petitioner A-1, while functioning as Secretary of the A.P. Public Service Commission during the relevant period, entrusted evaluation of the Answer Scripts to a private entity, represented by A-2. Thus, an investigation was sought into the issue as to what exactly M/s. Camsign Media Private Limited did, under the instructions of A-1.
Counsel for the Petitioner A-1 contended that there has been a huge delay in registering the F.I.R., in as much as the alleged incident had taken place in December 2022, whereas the F.I.R. was registered in 2025. Further that the subject issue of availing the services of M/s.Camsign is a collective decision of APPSC, and the same was in the course of discharging his official duties of Secretary of APPSC. It was submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic, such a decision was taken for keeping the answer sheet at the premises of M/s. Haailand Resorts.
It was his further contention that the Petitioner being a government servant, “breach of trust” cannot be invoked against him, without any preliminary investigation and without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further urged that in order to attract liability under Section 409 of I.P.C., there should be an entrustment of the property to the Petitioner, whatever the amounts that were paid to the A-2 were towards his services rendered to the APPSC.
Counsel for the Petitioner A-2 contended that the Petitioner was only responsible for the execution of work in terms of the work order issued in his favour, and he has nothing to do with any of the alleged crime.
Reasoning By Court
The Court, at the outset, observed that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner call for investigation, which is at a threshold stage. With regard to sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., it was further observed that unless it is established that the alleged act was in excess of discharge of his official duties, and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of official duty, the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would not arise.
The Court thus denied bail to both the Petitioners, however, granting liberty to A1 to seek medical bail since his condition warranted hospitalisation.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
