IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Or ^ i PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 821« DF 9r)7A © Ai O \\j Between: Adala Hari Prasad Rahul Reddy, S/o. Adala Narashimha Reddy, Aged about 43 years. R/o. Door No. 9/377-G-11, Mannur, Rajampeta, kadapa District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.10 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi represented by Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, 1973/482 BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Anticipatory Cr.No.522 of 2024 Bail in on the file of the East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District, in the event of their arrest till the disposal of the main Bail petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Bail in Cr.No.522 of 2024 on the file of the East Tirupati Police Station, Tirupati District, In the event of their arrest till the disposal of the main Bail petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY ,Advocate for Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: upon hearing the arguments of Sri the Petitioner and the APHC010511982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] ■J? WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8218/2024 Between: Adala Hari Prasad Rahul Reddy. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8218 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. 10 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. 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 registered on 31.10.2024. was 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 through creation and dissemination of morphed and fabricated photos on social media. These manipulated media contained defamatory, derogatory and abusive comments against political it is further stated that such actions go beyond adversaries, defaming the individuals and poses significant threat to public peace and law and order with a potential to disturb communal 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. offences under which the Petitioner was charged, maximum sentence of 7. The barring Section 111 of the BNS, carry (7) years imprisonment and by default would be entitled to notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which is in pari materia seven with Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another As noted above, the only bar for issuing notice under Section 35 of the BNSS is Section 111 of the BNS and the entire 8. ^ (2014) 8 see 273 3 revolved around applicability of the said Section to the arguments 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. It is the contention of the learned 10. Contentions: 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 by arresting the Petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the confession of co-accused has political scores further 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 and therefore Section 111 of the BNS cannot be made applicable to the case. 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 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 co 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. 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’? 14. 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 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 material benefit including a financial 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 offence 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;; The reason for inclusion of the Petitioner in the crime is the 15. It is too well known that the confession of a co-accused. confession of co-accused in custody cannot be said to be substantive evidence to implicate the Petitioner, 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. Further, the The second aspect of the issue is that explanation (ii) to Section 111 of the BNS defining “Continuing uniawful activity” 16. 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 " 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 in 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 Section 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 invocation 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 anothei^. As a sequel, the miscellaneous 6(2014)8 see 273 \ Sd/-AVIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. The Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi. One CC to SRI. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 1. 2. 3. 4. Three CD Copies RDB nm HIGH COURT DATED;07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8218 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION