[3369] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAI`IL,`®¥. TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .-PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA R CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3359 OF 2025 Between : AND '\``\-3\\-RA*` K. Shivaji NaI-k, S/o. Dasru Naik, Aged 41 years, R/o. 1St Line, Krishna Nagar, LakshmI®narayana Nilayam Guntur, Guntur District. Petitioner/Accused No.8 (Kilavi Venkata RosaI-ah DrI-Vcr ' 1 The State of Andhra pradesh, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravati High Court Bul'ldings at Nelapadu, Amaravatj, Guntur District. Respondent petjtI-On under SectI-On 438 of BNS-S / 482 of Cr.P.C is filed prayI'ng that I-n the circumstances stated in the affidavit f['Ied jn support of the crimjna[ petition, the High Court may be pleased fo enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.8 on bail in the event of hI|S arrest in FIR.No.10 of 2020 dt.22.01.2020 on the file of Ponnur Rural Police sta{iQ,n, Guntur District . The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri v VINOD K REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the court made the following. APHCO10154602025 EHiTET lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3369] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3359/2025 Between I. K Shivaji Naik H.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT counsel for the petitioner/accused: 1.V VINOD K REDDY counsel for the Respondent/complainantl. 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petit.'lon, u/See.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the Petitioner/A8, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.10/2020 of Ponnur Rural Police Stat'lon, Guntur District. 2. A case has been registered againStthe PetitiOnerand OtherSfOrthe offence punishable u/see.354-D and 509 lPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondentrState. `.`` i:'it=:_3gA:*`=3ifeEi:` `r_I 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, isthat, on 22.01.2020, the defacto complainant filed a report before the police stating that on 19-01,2020 there was a newspaper clipping in a daily newspaper with certain implicit allegations against the daughter of the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the said clipping, cerfaifl posts were allegedly posted and fOrWarded in some whatsapp groups and social media platforms along with Personal pictures of his daughter. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha,I initially the Crime was registered in the year 22.01.2020 and after four years and ten months i-.e. on 22.ll.2024 an alteration' memo was filed altering Sections 354D, 509,120b,153a,153-, 469, 471, 505(2) r/w 34 lPC, 67 ITA Act and in the second alteration memo dated 23.ll.2024 i.e. on the next day tO the first alteration memo Sections 467, 468 lPC were added. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the prosecution case there was a dispute ivi{h regard to purchase of the property for lower price for which the petitioner said to have sent whatsapp messages in the group by name Jai Kilari. lt is submitted that basing On the COnfeSSiOn statement of A1, this case came to-be registered against the -Other accused persons. A2 was released on bail by this Court vide orders in crl.p.No,8624 of 2024 dated 31.12.2024 and prays tO grant antiCiPatOry bail to this petitioner. '`\. \. •``'*L- - 3 r/ 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that A2 was granted anticipa{ory bail by this Court but prays to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. A reading of the orderofthis Court in CrI.P.No.8624 of2024 dated 31.12.2024 indicates that A2 was the admin of the said whatsapp group. Al and others posted 'some messages in the said group and shared them with others with all false news and making that viral. By v'lrtue of the same, the present complaint has.been filed. The bail orders refers the 'Judgmend reported -lr\ Kishor S/o Chintaman Tarone vs. The State of Maharashfra wherein it was observed that the a group admin'lstrator cannot be held vicariously liable for an act of member of the group, who posts objectionable content in that group. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that the petitioner was instru~mental in making others to post the messages. The case came to be registered against the petitioner basing on the confession statement of co-accused. Except making omnibus aIIegationso, no specific role has been attributed against the petitioner in the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, as seen from the record, there is a delay of approximately five years in altering the Section of laws. prosecution has not placed specific material showing the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offences altered. 9. . I Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 'in the report, the peti{ioner's name was mentioned as Kilari Venkata Rosaiah, driver. But TSZZf= _ T 4 i/. his actual name is K.Sivaji Naik. lt seems that the PetitiOne-r]S actual name is shown as sivaji Naik by filing alteration memo. 10. lt is seen from the initial complaint that the Petitioner acted aS an administrator of the whatsapp group. As already observed in the decision ofted above -I.e. Kishor S/o Chintaman Tarone vs. .The State of Maharashfra wherein i± iS observed that the a group administrator cannot be held vicariously tliable for an act of member Of the group, Who Posts objectionable content in that group. By analyzing the said fact, this Court referred crI.P.No|8624 of 2O24 and observed-that in the absence Of any provision it may not be stated that criminal intent entertained by one member of the whatsapp group will be shared by the Others also. As already observed prosecution has not placed any material to clinchingly show that the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. considering the long delay in filing the ,alteration memo, the possibility of inclusion of such sections to deprive the right,of the petitioner cannot be denied. ln the said facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ll. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed tO Surrender before the conc;rned police station within a period of two (o2) weeks from -the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on his surrender the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a Personal bond for a Sum Of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like `*- cke •J 5 // sum each {o the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer concerned on every sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon for a period of two (02) months. The petitioner shall give an undertaking within one week thereafter that he shall not indulge in any u-nlawiul activities and posting of fake and false messages in any social media platform. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. I ``.`` •i S D!-...:.it.. ASSJSTAfu /IT,RUE COPY// -;_i..!.i For --L-_ _ |\ To, 1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge .Court, Ponnur. 2. The Station House Officer, Po-nnur Rural Police Station, Guntur District .a 3. One CC to SRl. VVINOD K REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 5. One spare copy 1.. HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :08/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3359 of 2025 ALLOWED