Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pamidikalva Madhusudhan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010287372025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5996/2025
Between:
1. PAMIDIKALVA MADHUSUDHAN, , S/O CHENCHU
SUBBAIAH(LATE), AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DIRECTOR
OF DHATRI COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD AND CAMSIGN
MEDIA PVT LIMITED, R/O- FLAT NO. A 101, GOUND
FLOOR, TRENDSET, GRANDHI APARTMENTS,
YERRAMANZIL, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public
Prosecutor Police Department, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to
grant Regular bail to the Petitioner herein who is arraigned as
Accused No.2 and remanded to judicial custody in relation to a
Crime in FIR No.56 of 2025 registered on the basis of the
complaint made by P. Raja Babu on the file of the Suryaraopet
Police Station, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
grant interim bail to the petitioner herein who is arraigned as
Page 2 of 24
Accused No.2 in connection with Crime in FIR.No.56 of 2025 on the
file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada District considering
the severe health condition of the Petitioner in the interest of justice
and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. UMESH CHANDRA P V G
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Page 3 of 24
O R D E R:
–
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’)
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.2 to grant
regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.56 of 2025
of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada city, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 120B read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC‘).
2. The detailed case facts that are emanated from out of
the investigation conducted by the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to, as
‘APPSC’) are as follows:
(a) The APPSC issued a Notification for filling up of 169
posts in various Group-I Services vide Notification No.27/2018,
dated 31.12.2018 and the selection process comprises preliminary
examination, main/written examination and oral test/interview. In
total, 1,14,473 candidates applied pursuant to the said Notification
and preliminary examination was conducted on 26.05.2019, and
59,200 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination.
Results of the preliminary examination were announced on
01.11.2019, wherein 8,351 candidates were declared qualified for
Page 4 of 24
Mains examination. Later, pursuant to the Orders of this Court,
dated 22.10.2020, the list was revised and results were declared on
29.10.2020, in which, 9,679 candidates were declared as qualified
for Mains examination.
(b) The Mains examination was scheduled to be held from
14.12.2020 to 20.12.2020; that out of 9679 candidates, 6807
candidates appeared for Mains examination. On 28.10.2020, the
Commission, due to Covid Pandemic effect, gave consent for
Digital Evaluation of answer scripts (total 07 papers) and Camps
were conducted from January, 2021 to April, 2021 and in total, 162
Subject Experts were involved in the said evaluation process, for
which, a total sum of Rs.1,38,33,098/- was spent for Digital
Evaluation through Cheque No.776644, dated 28.04.2021 drawn in
favour of Stone Media Advisors; that the Digital Evaluation was
declared on 28.04.2021.
(c) Aggrieved by the Digital Evaluation method, which was
not mentioned in the Notification, some of the non-selected
candidates filed Writ Petition No.11000 of 2021 and batch cases
before this Court, and this Court, vide Order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
Writ Petition No.11000 of 2021, dated 16.06.2021, granted interim
stay on the results that was declared on 28.04.2021. This Court,
Page 5 of 24
vide Order, dated 01.10.2021, passed final orders in I.A.No.1 of
2021 in Writ Petition No.11000 of 2021 directing the Commission to
evaluate the papers (07) manually and in conventional mode and to
complete the exercise within three (03) months.
(d) The In-charge Chairman of APPSC, upon assuming
charge, discussed the issue with the Members and decided to go
for Manual Evaluation in consonance with the Orders of this Court,
dated 01.10.2021 and accordingly, pre-evaluation preparatory work
arrangements took place and answer scripts were shifted to
Haailand Resorts for further evaluation process.
(e) That an evaluation camp was scheduled from
06.12.2021 at Haailand Resorts and the Superintendent of Police,
Guntur was requested to provide a closed vehicle with police escort
to transport the answer papers from the Commission’s office to the
evaluation camp on 05.12.2021 vide Letter No.374/Confdl.C/2019,
dated 03.12.2021. Total, 48,442 answer scripts were handed over
to the Camp Officers without disturbing the bundles, which were
already bundled at 50 scripts in each for digital evaluation; that the
Bundle Control Slips (one for each bundle) are supplied for Manual
Evaluation Camp at Haailand to record the marks in 1st, 2nd and 3rd
valuations; that as per the bundle count, approximately, 3000
Page 6 of 24
bundle control slips are printed before commencement of manual
evaluation camp and each evaluation requires approximately 2500
control slips @ 20 scripts per bundle for a total of 48,442 scripts.
Further, the Barcode Sheet (Section I, II and III) are printed and
stapled with each answer script and the marks by the examiners.
The Commission spent an amount of Rs.1,14,32,312/- for Manual
Evaluation through cheque No.197469, dated 16.02.2022 drawn in
favour of Camsign Media Private Limited; Rs.2,94,320/- through
cheque No.197470, dated 25.0.2022 for Camp officials and
Rs.2,45,406/- for Data Tee Agency through cheque No.197471,
dated 25.02.2022 and in total, Rs.1,19,72,038/- was spent for
Manual Evaluation at Haailand Resorts.
(f) On 01.01.2022, a news item was published in Sakshi
(Telugu) Newspaper stating that accused No.1, being an IPS
Officer and Secretary of APPSC, told them that in order to avoid
inordinate delay, agreed to go for Manual Evaluation as per the
Orders of this Court, dated 01.10.2021 and the results of Group-I
Mains examination (Notification No.27/2018) would be released in
the month of February, 2022.
(g) On 18.02.2022, the Government appointed
Sri D.Gautam Sawang, IPS as the Chairman of the APPSC and he
Page 7 of 24
assumed charge on 19.02.2022 and the Manual Evaluation process
was reviewed in all aspects and decided to conduct spot valuation
from 25.03.2022 by arranging three camps i.e. 1. SRR and CVR
Government Degree College (Qualifying Papers and Essay) and
R&B-5th floor (2 camps) (4 Subject Papers) by engaging various
Subject Experts from various Universities, under CCTV Surveillance
and an amount of Rs.2,05,77,917/- was spent towards
remuneration to Examiners, Camp officials and for miscellaneous
expenditure.
(h) After due procedure, on 26.05.2022, the Manual
Evaluation results were declared, in which, 325 candidates were
provisionally called for interview in 1:2 ratio for total 165 vacancies,
and 48 candidates, who claimed that they have Sports Certificates,
were called for certificate verification against two (02) sports
vacancies; that the interviews/oral tests were conducted from
15.06.2022 to 29.06.2022.
(i) In the meantime, on 13.06.2022, some non-selected
candidates filed Writ Petition No.15701 of 2022 and batch cases
before this Court, seeking to set-aside the list of eligible candidates
dated 26.05.2022 on the ground of not releasing 1st valuation/
(Manual) results conducted prior to February, 2022.
Page 8 of 24
(j) On 14.06.2022, this Court rejected to grant Stay on
interviews and directed the Commission to file counter in Writ
Petition No.15701 of 2022 and others and accordingly, interviews
were conducted from 15.06.2022 to 29.06.2022; that the Three
Boards with Subject Experts were constituted consisting of a
Departmental Representative (an IAS Officer), Commission/
Interview Board/Panel to assess the suitability of the candidate and
basing on the holistic performance of individual, the Commission/
Members of the Board awarded marks to every individual/candidate
on the advice of Subject Experts/Departmental Representatives and
no representations were received by the Commission on the ground
of irregularities during the process of interviews.
(k) After completion of interview process, duly following the
scheme of examination, and basing on the performance of each
individual, both in written examination and interview/oral test,
considering the combined merit, the provisional selection results
were announced on 05.07.2022 and similarly for sports vacancies
on 30.11.2022 and the Unit lists were communicated to the Unit
Officers in the month of July and December, 2022 for issuance of
appointment orders for the individuals; that out of 167 vacancies in
the said notification, 165 candidates were provisionally selected and
Page 9 of 24
146 candidates joined into service, however, the selection and
appointments are subject to the outcome of Judgments in Writ
Petition No.15701 of 2022 and batch cases and also to the Order,
dated 13.03.2022 in SLA (Civil No.10962 of 2021). The Unit
Officers issued appointment orders to the selected candidates by
duly obtaining the Undertaking from them stating that they would
not claim any equities and that they would get themselves
impleaded in the said Writ Petitions, if they intend to contest.
(l) While the matter stood thus, after hearing, this Court,
vide Judgment, dated 13.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.15701 and
batch cases set-aside the impugned list of eligible candidates,
dated 26.05.2022 (Result of Main Examination) and directed the
Commission to re-conduct Main Written Examination afresh for
Notification No.27/2018, dated 31.12.2018 and the value the papers
strictly in accordance with APPSC Rules, giving at least two months
time to the candidates and complete the process and selection
within six (06) months time.
(m) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 13.03.2024 passed by
this Court, the Commission and some successful candidates filed
Writ Appeal No.258 of 2024 and batch cases before this Court on
18.03.2024 and after hearing, on 21.03.2024, a Division Bench of
Page 10 of 24
this High Court granted interim measure that the eligible candidates
of the list, who have already been appointed and are in service,
shall not be ousted form service till the next date of hearing and the
said orders are being extended until further orders.
3. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused No.2
received Work Order vide Letter No.542/CDB/2021, dated
03.12.2021 for manual evaluation of Group-I Mains answer sheets
with 24 conditions and the work order was issued without an MoU
and in contravention of APPSC’s own evaluation norms, which
mandate evaluation by Professors in Government premises under
Commission oversight; that out of 24 conditions, the Condition No.5
was that, the Agency shall make a list of Examiners supplied from
the approved list of APPSC and shall maintain list of Examiners
(Subject-wise) and scrutinizers, and the petitioner/accused No.2
was expected to facilitate evaluation by qualified examiners as per
the work order. Instead, as per the directions of accused No.1, the
petitioner/accused No.2 hired unqualified persons and as per the
version of evaluators, they merely transferred marks into OMR
sheets without performing evaluation and they do not have
adequate experience, facilitated mark mapping, not real evaluation,
Page 11 of 24
violated the work order and the Orders of this Court, despite
knowing the process was against established rules.
The petitioner/accused No.2 received Rs.1,14,32,312/- from
APPSC without proper bills or back up documentation, out of which
Rs.20.06 lakhs was paid to Haailand Resorts for unauthorized
camp arrangements and Rs.10.3 lakhs was paid to hired
unqualified workers and remaining amount was claimed for other
expenses which did not contain bills. The petitioner/accused No.2
knowingly participated in facilitating the fraudulent evaluation by
engaging unqualified persons, organizing and hosting the
evaluation camp outside official premises, misrepresenting the
process that was in direct violation of court orders, APPSC norms
and public trust.
4. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel
representing Sri Umesh Chandra P.V.G. learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.2 would contend that the petitioner/accused
No.2 is a private agency, hired by the authorities to do certain job,
and being a third-party, the petitioner is completely unaware to the
internal Rules of the hired authority, and that this is a case, where
the legal principle ‘Doctrine of Indoor Management’ can be
considered. The petitioner, being an agency, submitted a quotation
Page 12 of 24
as instructed by the authorities for the work order that was received,
and he was neither the authority nor sanctioning officer of funds,
therefore, question of misuse of funds does not arise, and he was
falsely roped into the crime. The learned senior counsel further
contends that the work being done by the petitioner/accused No.2 is
supervisory in nature, as the evaluation and scrutinization works are
being done by the list of valuers and scrutinizers, provided by the
APPSC.
Learned senior counsel further contends that the issue
pertains to the authorities, who are responsible for conducting
evaluation according to the procedure/rules, but it is deviated and
the petitioner is falsely arraigning as accused No.2, instead of
marking him as a witness.
The learned senior counsel further contends that there are no
specific overt-acts or allegations as against the petitioner/accused
No.2 and it is a civil official contract entered into with the State and
in case of breach of it, that can be considered as a civil liability only
and the State cannot rope it as a criminal litigation.
The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner
was arrested on 09.05.2025 and he was examined by taking into
Page 13 of 24
police custody, and that no further investigation with regard to
petitioner/accused No.2 is pending.
The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner/
accused No.2 is suffering from Kidney infection, water allergy and
severe migraine and repeated persuasions, the Jail authorities took
the petitioner/accused No.2 to medical treatment on 30.05.2025 to
the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, who stated that the
health condition of the petitioner is deteriorating, as the petitioner is
suffering from gallbladder issue due to stones, which requires
immediate treatment. Hence, he prays to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State would contend
that on the directions of accused No.1, the manual evaluation was
assigned to accused No.2, who is a private agency, contrary to the
existing procedure and rules with ulterior motive and work order
was issued with 24 conditions without following the due process. He
contends that in pursuant of such conspiracy, the petitioner/
accused No.2 engaged unqualified persons and deviated condition
No.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the
petitioner/accused No.2 without evaluating the answer scripts by
qualified evaluators, committed several irregularities and mapped
Page 14 of 24
the marks in the OMR sheets by unqualified professionals in a
deceitful manner by deliberately following the instructions of
accused No.2 and caused huge loss to the Government exchequer
by deliberately following the instructions of accused No.1.
Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the
statements of L.W6/Kolukula Vara Prasad, Joint Secretary of
APPSC HOD and L.W12/Gundu Satyavathi Yadav, wife of one
Gundu Madhu, who was working as Driver in Digital Satellite News
Gathering of Camsign Medical Private Limited, prima facie go to
show that the petitioner/accused No.2 is close associate of accused
No.1, and because of that reason, his agency was entrusted with
manual valuation of answer scripts of Group-I Main examination
and thus, he was paid with huge sum and became one of the
beneficiaries and caused huge loss to the Government exchequer
and thereby, the petitioner/accused No.2 acted hand-in-glove with
accused No.1 and the investigation with regard to financial routing
of misappropriated amount is pending and at this stage, if the
petitioner/accused No.2 is enlarged on bail, it would hamper the
investigation and he would threaten the witnesses and hamper the
evidence. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Page 15 of 24
6. He submits that the specific allegations against the
petitioner/accused No.2 is that, for carrying out the exercise of
evaluation of answer scripts of Group-I Main examination, the
services of M/s. Camsign Media Private Limited, represented by
accused No.2 was availed and for the said work, accused No.2 was
issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,14,32,312/- by APPSC without
proper bills or back up documentation, and the petitioner/accused
No.2, in turn, paid Rs.20.06 lakhs to Haailand Resorts for
unauthorized camp arrangements and Rs.10.3 lakhs to hired
unqualified workers and the remaining amount was claimed for
other expenses which did not contain bills. It was alleged that the
petitioner/accused No.2 knowingly participated in facilitating the
fraudulent evaluation by engaging unqualified persons, organizing
and hosting the evaluation camp outside official premises,
misrepresenting the process that was in direct violation of court
orders, APPSC norms and public trust. Learned Public Prosecutor
would contend that this is a case where serious accusations were
levelled as against the petitioner/accused No.2 and the
petitioner/accused No.2, being the close associate of accused No.1,
there is every likelihood of tampering the evidence and threatening
the witness. He placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down
Page 16 of 24
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and
another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under
(paragraph Nos.12 and 20):
“12. In regard to cases where earlier bail
applications have been rejected there is a further onus on
the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of
bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications
have been rejected and after such consideration if the court
is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said
court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such
earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be
granted. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay2)
20. Before concluding, we must note that though
an accused has a right to make successive applications for
grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail
applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds
on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such
cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh
grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the
one taken in the earlier applications….”
7. In State of M.P. v. Kajad3 the Hon’ble Apex Court held
as under (Paragraph No.5):
“Section 37 of the NDPS Act enjoins that a person accused
of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five
years or more, shall generally be not released on bail.1
(2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528.
2
(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688.
3
(2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 673.
Page 17 of 24
Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under
sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37 (1). For granting
the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced
before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with
which he is charged and further that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed
that the conditions for granting the bail, specific in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 37 in addition to the limitations
provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other
law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail.
Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is
uncalled for.”
8. A perusal of the proposition of law laid down in the
aforesaid case goes to show that, undoubtedly, the Court, before
granting bail, has to consider the nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the witnesses and prima
facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. In the case
of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (1st supra) relied upon by the learned
Public Prosecutor, the accused committed murder of his brother
and after investigation, accused therein were arrested and the
Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the trial Court and at
Page 18 of 24
that stage, the accused No.1 therein made number of applications
for grant of bail pending trial and most of such attempts had failed
and the Patna High Court allowed the application and enlarged the
accused No.1 on bail and being aggrieved by the said order, the
brother of the deceased preferred appeal. Further, in the said case,
number of witnesses having turned hostile after the accused was
enlarged on bail and at that stage, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that, while granting bail, the High Court did not advert to
the complaint of the investigating agency as to the threat
administered by the accused to the witnesses as also to the fact of
a number of witnesses having turned hostile after the accused was
enlarged on bail.
9. In the instant case, police did not file charge sheet.
The petitioner/accused No.2 was arrested on 09.05.2025 and, the
learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada
vide Order, dated 24.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2025 in Crime
No.56 of 2025 granted police custody of petitioner/accused No.2
from 6.00 a.m. on 25.05.2025 to 5.00 p.m. on 26.05.2025 for the
purpose of investigation.
10. With regard to the another proposition of law relied on
by the learned Public Prosecutor in Kajad (2nd supra), the accused
Page 19 of 24
was found in possession of opium weighing 7 kgs and the police
seized the opium and after completion of investigation, police filed
charge sheet before the competent Court and the bail application
filed by the accused therein, was rejected by the trial Court and his
further application before the High Court was also rejected.
However, without mentioning the change in the circumstances, the
accused therein moved another application in the High Court, which
was allowed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case observed
that after rejecting the first application for bail, the order of the High
Court allowing the second application, having been passed in
violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act by ignoring the
mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the
conditions governing the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and is thus not sustainable.
11. Here, in the case on hand, the petitioner/accused No.2
filed Criminal Petition No.5748 of 2025 before this Court under
Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS seeking for his enlargement. This
Court, vide Order, dated 09.06.2025, considering the nature of
allegations and also as the investigation is at threshold stage,
dismissed the said Criminal Petition. The petitioner/accused No.2
filed the present Criminal Petition i.e. second bail application
Page 20 of 24
seeking for his enlargement. Now, it has to be seen whether there
are change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier
bail application till the date of filing of the present bail application.
12. Indisputably, the petitioner/accused No.2 was
remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2025 and as discussed in the
preceding paragraphs, the petitioner/accused No.2 was granted
police custody from 6.00 a.m. on 25.05.2025 to 5.00 p.m. on
26.05.2025, i.e. much prior to the filing of earlier bail application
before this Court.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 would
contend that the petitioner/accused No.2 requires immediate
medical treatment as there are stones in the gallbladder. A perusal
of the proceedings recorded by this Court, vide Order, dated
26.06.2025, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police,
District Jail, Vijayawada to get the health condition of accused No.2
evaluated by producing him physically before experts of
Gastroenterologist, Hepato-biliary Surgeon and Urologist by
conducting all necessary medical tests and to submit a report. It
was further directed that they shall also analyze the report, dated
03.06.2025 opined by Dr. Parag Dashatwar, Olive Hospital,
Hyderabad, which was issued based on the previous medical
Page 21 of 24
history of the accused No.2, besides examining him by conducting
all requires tests and diagnosis and if the Government Experts in
the fields of Gastroenterology, Hepato-biliary and Urology are not
available in Vijayawada, the Superintendent, District Jail, was
permitted to avail the services of private medical practitioners in the
above facilities at the cost of petitioner/accused No.2.
14. The Registry of this Court vide Dis. No.1394, dated
01.07.2025 received the Medical Evaluation Report from the District
Jail, Vijayawada issued by the Government General Hospital,
Vijayawada, dated 30.06.2025.
15. A perusal of the Medical Evaluation Report goes to
show that the Professor and HOD of Urology, SMC/GGH,
Vijayawada clinically examined the accused No.2 and his
investigational evidences revealed that the symptoms are not going
in favour of renal infective pathology, except only for small calculus
disease, as it is evident on CT KUB and in view of gallstones, the
accused No.2 was referred to General Surgeon Consultation.
16. The Professor and HOD of General Surgery examined
accused No.2 and observed that the case is a history of
uncomplicated calculus cholecystytis. A perusal of the Report of
Whole Body CT Scan goes to show phleboliths are noted in pelvis
Page 22 of 24
and the included gallbladder shows few radiodense calculi of 5-7
mm and on clinical correlation by the Department of Radiology and
Imageology, there was an impression of Bilateral Small Renal
Calculi and Cholelithiasis.
17. The ADME/Professor of Gastroenterology, SMC/GGH,
Vijayawada also clinically examined accused No.2 and opined that
the accused No.2 was suffering from cough, cold and pain in
abdomen and on his examination, he could find that the accused
No.2 had B/L wheeze and tenderness in abdomen in right iliacffosa
and right upper quadrant. The report further discloses that USG
abdomen was not advised for medical opinion and also that the
surgeon is the better one to comment on the gallstones as they are
symptomatic (May need surgery).
18. A perusal of entire Medical Evaluation Report, the
accused No.2 was examined by General Surgeon, General
Physician, Gastroenterology and Urologist, however, as there is no
Hepatobiliary Surgeon available in the Government General
Hospital, Vijayawada, he was not examined by the said Doctor. As
per the clinical investigation made by the said group of Doctors over
accused No.2, there was Bilateral Small Renal Calculi and
Cholelithiasis.
Page 23 of 24
19. Having gamut of entire facts and circumstances of the
case, Camsign Media Private Limited represented by accused
No.2, is an agency, and the contract was awarded to the said
agency. The petitioner executed the work as per the terms of the
contract. The petitioner is not the authority to take a decision with
regard to evaluation process/procedure, and the evaluation and
scrutinization works are being done by the list of valuers and
scrutinizers, provided by the APPSC. The petitioner/ accused No.2
was arrested on 09.05.2025 and he has been in judicial custody
since then. Furthermore, as observed supra, the accused No.2 was
already granted police custody for the purpose of investigation.
20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the Medical Evaluation Report of accused No.2, this
Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 on the
following conditions:
(i) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall be enlarged on
bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for
like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada;
(ii) On release, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall
appear before the Investigating Officer concerned once in
Page 24 of 24
a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and
1.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
th
7 July, 2025.
Note:
Issue CC today.
B/o.
DNB
[ad_1]
Source link