i.-`.\ + lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10322 OF 2025 Between : 1. Bothu Kishore, S/o. Prasada Rao, age 25 years, Head of Xeon Technologies Exam Centre R/o. FIat No.409, SW Nilayam Chanukya Nagar, Besides Sravani Sweets, Chinnamushidiwada Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam. 2. Ippili Jagadheeswara Rao, S/o.Ramana, age 32 years. Pvt., Employee working at Xeon Technoiogjes Exam Centre, R/o.4-184, Jagannadhapuram, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District Petitioners/Accused Mos. 3 & 4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep lby its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Through the Station House Officer Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filec' in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 & 4 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 301 of 2025 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the petitioner: sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVING ORDER a ' ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the petitioners/Accused Nos.{} & 4 for granting. of pre-arrest bail jn connection with crime No.301 of ?_025 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3, 5, 8,10 read with ll(1) of the A.P. Public Examjna{ions (Prevention of Malpractices) Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:- 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.03.2025, during the APPSC Schedule-1 examination conducted at _xeon Technologies Exam Center, +1 Chinamushidiwada, pendurthy, visakhapatnam, certain candidates allegedly engaged in malpractice in collusion with exam functionaries. The exainination was administered by APPSC through Tata Consultancy Services (TCS); which had been appoI'nted aS the Service Provider for the recruitment process held from 24.03.2025 to 27.03.2025. The complainant, Mr. Gandi Lakshmana Rao, Hub Operations Manager at TCS, lodged a report on 29.06.2025 at 16:00 hours, stating that pursuant to a request from APPSC dated 02.04.2025, an internal audit was conducted to identify instances. of unfair Means (UFM) during the examinatI'On held in two shifts on 25.03.2025. Upon analyzing candidate.audit logs and corresponding ccT\/ footage, two candidates, .Mr. Earle Demudu Naidu and Mr. Pudota Sara{ Chandra Sai, were found to have acted suspiciously. Notably, portions of the CCTV footage were missing, raising concerns of po&ssible collusion with test center staff. ln view of these 1 the BNSS findingsJ the COmPlainant requested initiation Of legal Proceedings against the candidates and any exam personnel found to be complI-Cit. QLONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.-_ 3. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 'petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged I-n the complal'nt, has been committed by them. lt is contended that the petitI'OnerS are the SOle breadwinners of their fainilies, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are 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 Petitioners undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have 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 to grant pre-arrest bail to,the petitioner/Accused No. 5, in the interest of justice and equity. j` O PROSECUTOR: ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the .investigation is at a nascent and. sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. lt is submitted that enlargement of the petitioners on Pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative Process, aS there exists a grave apprehension that the petitioners may not extend requisite cooperatI'On and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the petitioners, 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 J-uStiCe. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential preJ'udiCe tO a fair and impartI-al inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDE RATION: 8. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learnecI Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitione.KSIa_r_e entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?1] ANALYS I 9. There was a delay of{hree months in lodging the report by the de-facto complainant pursuan{ to the alleged commission of the offence. The exams were conducted from 25.03.2025 to 27.03.2025 whereas the complaint was lodged on 29.06.2025. The names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the FIR. 10. ConsiderI'ng the entire gamut of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, this court is inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4. CONCLUS lON ll. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following condI'tiOnS: i. ln the event of arrest of the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4, 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; ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 &'4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned omce in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limitsl without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & '4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to trle investigating officer. lf they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. \ *-\ I.-I.-.TL -. +'\ _i JTo, //TRUE COPY// I SD/-B.PRASAD RAO DsE#:FSITcREA:R 1. The St.ation House Officer; Per`durthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy > HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 08/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10322 of 2025 ALLOWED