lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATl ,I WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ' ..,'I +r| vy CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10318 OF 2025 .- Between: Bothu Kishore, S/o.Prasada Rao, age 25 years, Head of Xeon Technologies Exam Centre R/o.Flat No.409, S\^/ Nilayam Chanukya Nagar Besides Sravani Sweets, Chinnamushidiwada Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam, Petitioner/Accused No.5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Through the Station House Officer Pendur{hy Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Respondeht/Complainant ...I. Petition under Section 482 of BNSs is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in CrI.M.P. No. 974/2025 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and direct to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 5 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.192 of 2025 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District in the interest of justice. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent; The Court made the following ORDER: .--_ APHCO10530982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurjsdjctjon) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No: 10318 of2025 [3521] Betwee n : 1.BOTHU KISHORE, S/O.PRASADA RAO AGE 25 YEARS, HEAD OF XEON TECHNOLOGIES EXAM CENTRE R/O.FLAT NO.409, SW NILAYAM CHANUKYA NAGAR BESIDES SRAVANI SWEETS, CHINNAMUSHIDIWADA PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM. u.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Through the Station House Officer Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been fl'led under sectI'On 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 20231 by the petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.192 of 2025 of Pendurthy police 1 the BNSS `\ r .-`-=--` Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under section 3, 5 read with 8 of the A.P. Public Examinatiohs (Prevention of Malpractices) Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2.J The case of the prosecution is that on ll.04.2025, during the second shift of the BHEL recruitment examination conducted between 14:00 hrs and 16:30 hrs at Xeon Technologies Exam Centre, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam, one Gedela Chandra Sekhar, bearing Roll No.11210742370132, was found in possession of unauthorized material a piece of paper cont;+ining content directly related {o the said examination. The examination was being conducted by EDCIL India Ltd through Tata Consultancy Services, and the complainant, Guntuboina Srikanth, was serving ¥ in the capacity of venue commanding officer, TCS Ion, M`adhapur, Hyderabad. It is further the case of the prosecution that the said candidate was not acting alone, and that invigilators Jalla Sai Kumar and G. Sujith Sai, who were entrusted with the duty of maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the examination process, were found to be comp.licit in facilitating the use of unfair means. The said invigilators were allegedly assisting select candidates by enabling access to unauthorized materials, thereby violating the prescribed norms and undermining the fairness of the competitive examination. 3. Upon noticing the irregularities, the complainant initiated an internal enquiry, which included a review of the CCTV footage corresponding to the relevant time period. The findings of the said enquiry corroborated the -` --_± /` L`{,I allegations of misconduct and breach of examination protocol. The complainant, having compiled the evidence, lodged a formal complaint on 13.04.2025 at 20:30 hrs, seeking appropriate legal action against the individuals I-nvolved in compromising the integrity of the examination process. CONTENTIONS OFTHE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petl'tioner has been falsely implicated in the instant Proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaI'nt, has been committed by him. lt is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, l'ncluding arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. lt I-s further' submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this court may deem fit and Proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the court of his continued Presence aS and When required. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do either with assisting the persons who had resorted malpractI-CeS or he himself committed any kind of malpractice, inasmuch as he was only owner of the building, he has given the premises to the Tata Consultancy - Services for conducting the examination. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submI'tS that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances i= .- a,-. - of the present case. The Petitioner has:already extended full cooperation to the Investigating officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased {o grant pre-arrest bail to the -petitioner/Accused 'No. 5, I'n the interest Of juStiCe and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 7. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for an{icipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the--petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on Pre-arrest bail at this juncture WOuld Seriously impede the investigative Process, aS there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may ;ttempt to evade the due process of law, 8. The prosecution further contends that the petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may.exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the aIIegatI-OnS and the POtential Prejudice tO a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interesll of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. / (/ 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on:the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:I 10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consl-deration is: "Whether the petit-loner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?ll ANALYSIS: ll. The Allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.5, as per the version of the prosecution, I-S that he facilitated in resorting malpractices while conducting examinations in the xeon Technologies during BHEL exam on ll.04.2025 conducted by EDCIL India Limited through Tata Consultancy Services. Authorized person of Tata Consultancy Services lodged a report. Based on that report a case in crime No.192/2025 was registered under the Sections 3 & 5 read with 8 of A.P Public Examination Prevention of Mal practices and .unfaI'r Means Act, 2024 of Pendur{hy Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. 12. The Petitioner had approached the learned sessions Judge of Visakhapatnam and vide order dated 24.07.2025 in CrI.MP.Nos.821, 820, 864, 836 and 833 of 2025, the learned Sessions Judge inclined {o grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner and others and directed them to surre'nder before the learned VIl.Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam on or before 06.08.2025 and on such surrender they shall be released on bail ton executing self-bond for Rs.50,000/- ii= 13. The Petitioner has not- surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits the .reason for not surrendering before the learned Judicial Magistrate as per the direction of the learned sessions Judge was that the daughter of the petitioner suffered medical emergency. The learned sessions Judge vide order dated 10.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.974/2O25 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner/Accused No.5 on the applicatI'On made by the Station House Officer, Pendurthy police station as the petitioner did not surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned within the stipulated time. The learned sessions Judge observed that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but the petitioner did not choose to surrender. 14. Considering the entire gamut of the case, gravity and nature of the aIIegatI-OnS levelled against the petitioner, this court is inclined {o grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5. CONCLUS lON 15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. ln the event of arrest of the petitioner/Accused No.5, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; //E= ``=` r ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall`'`make himself available for investigation as and when required; >iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.OO a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till.filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not leave the State ofAndhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Office+r concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect {o the Investigating Officer. //TRUE COPY// SD/-a.PRASAD RAO ASS!S'TANTh SEC fflSTRAR iON OFFICER To] 1. The Station House Officerl Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [OUT] 4. One spare copy JSS , HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:08/10/2025 a- BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10318 of 2025 ALLOWED ::i,1rigj,i-;,'* £?//I,/i *, . S-#RT+ffRTS ,