IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8086 OF 2024 Between: Muddireddy Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o. Muddireddy Vasideva Reddy, Aged about 29 years, R/o. 9/58, Veera Reddy Gari Palli, Dappepalle Post OfficOj L.R. Palli Mandal, Annamayya District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5 • i"'*' -AND The State Oo Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at AmaravathiYi^ %y Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C/Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated -in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner bn anticipatory bail in Cr.No.522 of 2024 on the file of the East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District in the event of his arrest. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 ^ Petition under Section 438(1-) bf Cr.P.C/482(1) of BNSS praying that in the cir,cumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.522 of 2024 on the file of the East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District, in the event of his arrest till the disposal of the main Bail petition. • , ,^This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grpunds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sudharsana Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following Prosecutor ! \ nil t. I .I. I {■ 1 APHC010504302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8086/2024 Between: Muddireddy Praveen Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 .Sudharsana Reddy J Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VI3AY Criminal Petition No.8086 of 2024 ORDER: The present application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under; 3. The petitioner is A.5 in Crim^o.522 of 2024 on the file of East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District filed for the offences under Sections 2, 353(1 )(c), 353(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 336(4) 356(2) read with 49 and 61(2) of BNS. As per the complaint, posts making derogatory comments 4. against the present Deputy Chief Minister were spread in social media and the said posts also contain a female voice and some of the comments for the said post were likely to create negative sentiments among different religions. The above crime was registered on 31.10.2024. 5. In the course of investigation, the Accused A.1 had confessed that he along with A.2 to A. 11 conspired with a common intention to systematically target rival political groups 2 through creation and dissemination of photos on social media, defamatory, derogatory and abusive adversaries. morphed and fabricated These manipulated media contained comments against political actions go beyond It is further stated that such defaming the individuals and poses significant threat to public peace and law and order with a potential to disturb communai harmony in the State. 6. The offence alleged, in short, was that derogatory/abusive posts were spread in social media platforms against the rival political leaders holding Constitutional posts. 7. The offences under which the Petitioner barring Section 111 of the BNS, was charged, carry maximum sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment and by default would be entitled to notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which is in par# materia with Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another^ 8. As noted above, the only bar for issuing notice under Section 35 of the BNSS is Section 111 of the BNS and the entire ^2014) 8 see 273 3 arguments revolved around applicability of the said Section to the facts of the case. 9. Heard Sri Y.Nagi Reddy representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana. Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. 10. Contentions. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 111 of the BNS is not attracted to the facts of this case since it requires two chargesheets to be pending in the past 10 years with reference to the offences specified in Section 111 of the BNS and in the absence of any such chargesheets, Section 111 of the BNS is not It is their contention that Section 111 of the BNS made, applicable only with an intent to ensure that there is requirement to follow Section 35 of the BNSS and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioner. Learned further contended that the confession of attracted. was no counsel co-accused has extremely poor evidentiary value and such confessions obtained in custody can never be relied upon. The learned counsel further argued that many of the alleged abusive posts were made prior to 4 the onset of the BNS and therefore Section 111 of the BNS cannot be made applicable to the case. Learned Public Prosecutor in response had produced the details of the social media posts made by the account holders and contended that such derogatory posts having been made solely at the instance of the Petitioner have the effect of 11. disturbing the harmony in the society. It was further contended that the confessions made by the account holders/co-accused were voluntary and they had admitted in detail the role played by the Petitioner. He also contended that the abusive social media posts at the instance of rival political party were made by the co accused/account holders for remuneration and the same being a well-oiled network attracts the offence under Section 111 of the BNS. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the organized derogatory posts at the instance of the Petitioner amounted to ‘organized crime’. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the abusive social media posts were made prior to the onset of the BNS and also thereafter and therefore Section 111 of the BNS is applicable to the facts of the case 5 12. ' Learned Public Prosecutor had pointed out that there is no requirement of two chargesheets against the accused in the previous 10 years and submitted that filing of complaints would suffice. He further contended that the evidentiary value of the confession of co-accused is an aspect for appreciation by the trial Court. 13. Issue: Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration in this case is ‘whether the Petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage’? Reasoning: Before going into the applicability of Section 111 of the BNS, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 111 of the BNS so that there is ease in explaining the scope and 14. applicability of the provision. Section 111 of the BNS reads as under: Section 111. (1) Any continuing uniawfui activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human ■ trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence. 6 intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect materiai benefit inciuding financiai benefit, shall constitute organised crime. Expianation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (i) “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity; (ii) “continuing uniawfui activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence;; a or more or means an activity an 15. The reason for inclusion of the Petitioner in the crime is the confession of a co-accused. It is too well known that the confession of co-accused in custody cannot be said to be substantive evidence to implicate the Petitioner. Further, the prosecution could not specify any specific derogatory posts made by the Petitioner which could be termed to be abusive from the view point of a matured citizen. 16. The second aspect of the issue is that explanation (ii) to Section 111 of the BNS defining “Continuing unlawful activity” 7 mandates more than one chargesheet against the accused in the previous ten years. As on the date of registration of the crimes against the Petitioner, nothing has been pointed out as to the pendency of any chargesheet against the Petitioner for the offences referred in Section 111 of the BNS in the preceding 10 years. In the absence of any chargesheet at the time of registration of crime, the registration of offence under Section 111 of the BNS at this stage appears to be not in consonance with the requirement of law. The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala^ after referring to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others^ arising under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOC’ Act) held that two chargesheets are a requirement for registering an offence under Section 111 of the BNS. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Pappula Chalama Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh'^ in W.P.No. 26769 of 2024, disposed of on 18.12.2024. ^2014 see Online Ker 26557 '(2015) 14 see 272 ^024 see online AP 5532 \ 8 17. The Learned Public Prosecutor had filbd a memo in Crl.P.No.8059 of 2024 vide USR No.12840 of 2025 and the memo, all the cri different Districts as per crimes registered against the Petitioner in across the State in the year 2024 are under investigation. In the absence of any chargesheet in the preceding 10 years, which is a requirement of Section 111 of the BNS, the registration of crime under that Section prime facie appears to be unwarranted. ' 18. The reliance by the learned Public Prosecutor on the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Allahabad i of Jitesh Jha v. State of U.P^ in the case appears to be misplaced. In the said judgement, the application seeking quash of the crime was rejected after taking note of the fact that four chargesheets and cognisance in two cases by the concerned Court compliance to invoke Section 111 are sufficient of the BNS. The principal argument in that case that the chargesheets registered prior to the advent of the BNS cannot be taken into consideration for intocation of Section 111 of the BNS was rejected. / ^ 2024 see Online All 8095 9 19. Resul.t In that view and in order to maintain consistency, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Station House Officer concerned to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS (Section 41-A of the erstwhile Cr.P.C.) scrupulously, as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and another^. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. / 6 (2014) 8 see 273 Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REQISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SEeTION OFFieER To, 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class The Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Station, One CC to Sri Sudharsana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor Amaravati [OUT] Three CD Copies Tirupathi. 2. Tirupathi. 3. 4. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 5. RDB ssb :,f j ■y » ■ § HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 f ORDER CRLP.No.8086 of 2024 i DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION