Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Former APPSC Secretary Over Irregularities In Manual Evaluation Of Papers

While A1 had urged the invocation of Section 197 of CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the government before a Court can take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of their official duty, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava held,

“…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. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the investigation is at the threshold, the protection as envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner A-1.”

The Court further held,

“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.”

Facts:

Initially, in 2018, APPSC had issued a Group-I notification to occupy 169 vacancies. The preliminary exam was held on 26.05.2019, and the main exam was conducted from 14.12.2020 to 20.12.2020. While results were announced after digital evaluation of the answer scripts, few unsuccessful candidates challenged the digital evaluation in W.P. No.10805 of 2021, which was allowed and manual evaluation of the answer scripts were ordered.

Consequent to this, A1, as Secretary of APPSC, decided to shift the answer scripts to a private location at Haailand Resorts, Mangalgiri, and entrusted their manual evaluation to Camsign. Based on their quotation, a work order was issued, and the company was paid Rs.1,14,32,312/- for its services. The answer scripts remained at Haailand Resorts from December 2021 to February 2022.

Later, after a new Secretary took charge, the answer scripts were re-evaluated at official premises under CCTV surveillance. Results were declared, and appointments were made. Subsequently, the current Secretary of APPSC vide his letter to the Principal Secretary on 22.04.2025, requested an in-depth investigation into Camsign's involvement. Based on this, a case was registered on 25.04.2025. A2 was arrested on 07.05.2025, and A1 was remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025.

Aggrieved, A1 and A2 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking bail before the High Court.

Submissions:

It was the case of A1 that the event happened in December 2022 and there was a huge delay in registration of the FIR, which was registered in 2025. Additionally, it was submitted that a case of criminal breach of trust could not be made out and being a government servant, “breach of trust” cannot be invoked against him, without any preliminary investigation and without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of CrPC. He also argued that the decision of employing the services of Camsign was a collective decision of the Commission and due to Covid, the decision of keeping them at Haailand Resorts was taken. It was also urged that the entire process was done transparently, and to attract liability under Section 409 of IPC, there should be entrustment of the property to the petitioner. A1 also demanded that his medical condition, which included him facing severe cardiac arrests, be considered while examining whether bail should be granted.

Additionally, the A2 contended that it was a private entity— not privy to any decision of APPSC, responsible only for execution of work and had no role in the alleged crime.

On the other hand, the State respondent submitted that A1 had proposed manual evaluation of Group-I main exam answer scripts at a private location. Further, the investigation revealed that unqualified school teachers were engaged in evaluating the answer scripts, which was not appropriate for a Group-I level examination. It was further argued that obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was not mandatory as the matter was still under investigation. Finally, he contended that releasing A1 and A2 on bail could hamper the investigation, as there was a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Findings:

With respect to the sanction under Section 197 of CrPC, the Court held that since the investigation was at the threshold stage, protection under Section 197 CrPC could not be accorded to A1

Considering the nature of allegations made against the A1 and A2 and the fact that the investigation was at the threshold stage where it was yet to be determined what exactly was the service rendered by Camsign under the instructions of A1, the Court did not deem it fit to enlarge them on bail.

However, owing to the medical predicament of A1, the Court granted him liberty to move an application before I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, seeking grant of medical bail.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5701/2025

Case Title: Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order