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: 8147 OF 2024 Between: Gorli Satya NeSraj Kumar Naidu, S/o G.Demudu Babu, Aged about 26 years, R/o.D.No.58-6-11/2, Bharath Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapafnam Urban, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, representeed by its Public Prosecutor, Through SHO, Tirupati East P.S, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati. Petition under Section 482 BNSS,2023 circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner of his arrest in Crime No.522 of 2024, dated 31-10-2024 Tirupati East P.S. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2n9d ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT praying that in the on bail in the event on the file of the Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.522 of 2024, dated 31-10- 2024 on the file of the Tirupati East P.S. to release the This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T M 1 K Chaitanya, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: 1 APHC010507762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8147/2024 [3460] Between: Gorli Satya Neeraj Kumar Naidu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.TM KCHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: m HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8147 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.6 in Crime No.522 of 2024 on the file of East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District filed for the offences under Sections 352, 353(1 )(c), 353(2) of BNS, and Sections 111(2) (b), 196, 336(4), 356(2) read with Sections 49 and 61(2) of BNS„ 2023, which were added in the remand report subsequently. 4. As per the complaint, posts making derogatory comments 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. 2 5. In the course of investigation, confessed that he along with A.2 the Accused A.1 had to A. 11 conspired with a common intention to systematically target rival political through creation and dissemination of photos on social media. groups morphed and fabricated These manipulated media contained defamatory, derogatory and abusive comments against political It is further stated that such actions adversaries. go beyond poses significant threat to public a potential to disturb communal defaming the individuals and peace and law and order with harmony in the State. 6. The offence alleged, in short, was that derogatory/abusive posts were spread in social media platforms political leaders holding Constitutional posts. against the rival 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 pari materia With Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnes/? Kumar v. State of Bihar and another^ ' (2014) 8 see 273 3 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 arguments revolved around applicability of the said Section to the facts of the case. 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. 9. 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 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 4 argued that many qf the alleged abusive posts were made prior to the onset of the ^BNS and therefore Section 1.11 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 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 11. 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 Learned Public Prosecutor had pointed out that there is no 12. 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. Issue: Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration in this case is ‘whether the Petitioner is 13. 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 applicability of the provision. Section 111 of the BNS reads as 14. 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 a financiai benefit, shall constitute organised crime. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (i) » “organised crime syndicate’’ means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity; (ii) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable dffence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an 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;; 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 SJ 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 4 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 '(20ld) 14 see 272 " 2024|See online AP 5532 8 17. 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 1n the preceding 10 years, which is a requirement of Section 111 of the BNS, the registration of crime under that Section prima facie appears to be . unwarranted. 18. 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 invoke Sectiori 111 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 I invoJation of Section 111 of the BNS was rejected. "2024 see Online All 8095 9 19. 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. SD/-AVIJAYABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. The Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Statioj, Tirupathi District. One CC to Sri. T M K Chaitanya Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] * Three CD Copies RDB 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8147 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF