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: 8128 OF 2024 Between; Shaik Appapuram Adam Jani Basha @ Johny, S/o. Khasim, Age 27 Years, #4-19, West Bajar, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Near Jenda Chettu, Pothavaram, Guntur - 522616^ ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.9 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesti, Through its SHO, Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District, repre,sented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P . , - * f ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CdUrt may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.9 on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Cr.No.522 of 2024, Tirupathi East PS, Tirupathi District dated 31-10- 2024 for the alleged offences‘ under Sections 2,353(1 )(C), 353(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 336(4), 356(2) ;R/W:49 AND R/W61(2) BNS, 2023. ■ V •' 2 I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section , 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the „i»«-circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased, it is just and necessary that the present petitioner/A-9 be released on interim-bail in the event of arrest in "connection with the Cr.No.522 OF 2024, Tirupati East PS, Tirupati District dated 31.10.2024 for the alleged offence/s under Section/s 2, 353(1 )(C), 353(2), 111 (2)(b), 196, 336(4), 356(2) R/w 49 & R/w 61(2) BNS, 2023. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: * APHC010506792024 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: 8128/2024 Between: Shaik Appapuram Adam Jani Basha ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for th6 Petitioner/accused: 1 .GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VI3AY Criminal Petition No.8128 of 2024 ORDER; The present application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. 3. The petitioner is A.9 in Crime No.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,2023. As per the complaint, posts making derogatory comments against the present Deputy Chief Minister were spread on social media platforms and the posts also contain a female voice and of the comments for the said posts were likely to create negative sentiments among different religions. The above crime was registered on 31.10.2024. 4. some In the course of investigation, the Accused A.1 had confessed that he along with A.2 to A.11 conspired with a intention to systematically target rival political groups 5. common 2 through creation and dissemination photos on social media, defamatory, derogatory and abusive adversaries. of morphed and fabricated media contained comments against political such actions go beyond poses significant threat to public These manipulated It is further stated that defaming the individuals and peace and law and order with harmony in the State. a potential to disturb communal 6. The offence alleged, in short, was that derogatory/abuslve posts were spread in social media platforms political leaders holding constitutional against the rival posts. 7. The offences under which the Petitioner the cases, barring Section were charged in all carry maximum sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment and by default would be entitled to notice under Section parimateria of Section 41A of Cr.P.C Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar another^ 111 of the BNS, 35(3) of the BNSS, which iIS as specified by the Hon’ble V. State of Bihar and 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'SCC 273 3 arguments revolved around applicability of the. said Section to the facts of the case. Heard Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, representing Sri S.Dushyanth 9. learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Reddy, Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. 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 attracted. It is their contention that Section 111 of the BNS was made applicable only with an intent to ensure that there is no requirement to follow Section 35 of the BNSS and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that the confession of 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 the. onset of the BNS 10. M. 4 and therefore Section 111 of the BNS to the case. cannot be made applicable 11. 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 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 well-oiled network attracts the offence under Section BNS. The learned Public Prosecutor same being a 111 of the contended that the organized derogatory posts at the instance of the Petitioner amounted to 'organized crime’. The learned submitted that the, abusive social media the onset of the BNS and also thereafter 111 of the BNS is applicable to the facts of the Public Prosecutor posts were made prior to and therefore Section case. 5 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 12. Court. 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’? 13. 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 applicability of the provision. Section 111 of the BNS reads as 14. under: Section 111. (1) Any continuing uniawful 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 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. or a 6 intimidation, obtain direct coercion, or by any other unlawful means to or indirect materiai benefit i financial benefit, shall constitute including a organised crime. Expianation.—For the “organised crime syndicate purposes of this sub-section,-(i) " means a group of two singly or jointly, any continuing unlawful activity. or more as a syndicate persons who, acting either sh or gang indulge in (ii) “continuing unlawful prohibited by taw which i, with imprisonment of three activity” means an activity IS a cognizable offence punishable years or more ony person, either singly or jointly, as a organised crime syndicate undertaken by member of an or on behalf of such syndicate h more than one charge-sheets a competent Court within the of ten years and that Court in respect of which have been preceding period cognizance of such filed before has taken economic offence;; offence, and includes 15. The reason for inclusion confession of of the Petitioner in the crime i •t is too well known custody cannot be IS the a co-accused. that the confession of substantive evidence co-accused in said to be to implicate the Petitioner. Further, the prosecution could not specify by the Petitioner which any specific derogatory posts made could be termed to be abusive from the view point of a matured citizen 16. The second Section 111 of the BNS aspect of the i issue is that explanation (ii) defining “Continuing unlawful to 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. 17. 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 ^ 2014 see Online Ker 26557 '(2015) 14 see 272 8 in Pappula Chalama Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh"^ in W.P.No. 26769 of 2024, disposed of on 18.12.2024. 18. The Learned Public Prosecutor had filed a memo in Crl.P.No.8059 of 2024 vide USR No.12840 of 2025 and as per the memo, all the crimes registered against the Petitioner in different Districts across the State in the year 2024 are under investigation. In the absence of any chargesheet in the preceding 10 years, which is g requirementof Section 111 of the BNS, the registration of crime under that Section prima facie appears to be unwarranted. The reliance by the learned Public Prosecutor on the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case of Jitesh Jha v. State of U.P^ 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 are sufficient compliance to-Hnyoke Section 111 of the BNS. The principal argument in that case that the chargesheets registered prior to 19. " 2024 see online AP 5532 " 2024 see Online All 8095 9 the advent of the BNS cannot be taken into consideration for invocation of Section 111 of the BNS was rejected. 20. Result: 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. ”(2014) 8 see 273 Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ,G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. 2. The Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi. 3. One CC to SRI GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies gsg V ' : ■-I'.G? HIGH COURT DATED: 07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8128 of 2024 C 2 7JUN 2025 e rrentSec SSE «o ★ ]isi CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF