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: 8613 OF 2024 Between: 1. S Bharghav Reddy, S/o. S Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged 35 yrs, R/o. Villa No. 85, Raintree Park Villas, Namburu Village, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy, S/o. Sarvotham Reddy, Aged 30 years, R/o. 4- 3-256, Parnapalli Road, Beside rishi school, Pulivendula, Kadapa ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 2 and 3 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS (Under Section 438 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 direct the Station House Officer, Pulivendula UG Police Station, YSR Kadapa District release the petitioners/accused No. 2 & 3 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.409/2024 of Pulivendula UG Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. to This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri and the Public BUGULU SREETEJA ,Advocate for the Petitioner Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: M ft APHC010518112024 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: 8613/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) S Bharghav Reddy and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitloner/accused(S): 1.BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8613 of 2024 ORDER: The present applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners are A.2 and A.3 in Crime No.409 of 2024 on the file of Pulivendula UG Police Station, YSR Kadapa District filed for the offences under Sections 196, 308(5), 351(3), 353(c),112 (2)(b), r/w 3(5) of BNS and • Sections 3(1) (r)(s)(t) of SC and ST Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. A complaint was lodged by one Pullappagari Hari. The complainant claims to be scheduled caste community and is working at the Telugu Desam Party Office In Pulivendula Town. While so, on 29.09.2023, ,a person by name Varra Ravindra Reddy had posted derogatory posts against political leaders holding constitutional posts in the present Government in his facebook account. It is alleged that Varra Ravindra Reddy is a . social media convener of YSRCP party and was posting messages as per the instructions of the Petitioners since 2012. It 2 is stated in the complaint that the complainant along with two others had visited Pulivendula in December, 2023 and requested Varra Ravindra Reddy to delete the derogatory posts made. Then the said Varra Ravindra Reddy abused him in the name of caste and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees ‘two lakhs) for deletion of the posts. Henc6, the complaint. Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy and Sri O.Manohar 5. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that confession of a co-accused cannot be the basis implicating the Petitioners in the crime and 6. that the Petitioners are being implicated only for political reasons. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that though anticipatory bail is not contemplated under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act’), but contended that the bar would apply only if it is disclosed that essential ingredients of the Act are attracted. It was further contended that Section 111 of the BNS is not 7. 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 chargesheet, 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 no requirement to follow Section 35 of the BNSS and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioners. attracted. was 8. 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 2024 and therefore the Section 111 of the BNS cannot be applicable to the present cases. 9. 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 Petitioners, have the effect disturbing the harmony in the society. It was further'contended that the confessions made by the account holders/co-accused of 4 were voluntary and they had admitted in detail the role played by the Petitioners. 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 BNS. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the organized derogatory posts at the instance of Petitioners 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 after, therefore submits that the Section 111 of BNS is applicable to the facts of the case. 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. He further contended that even though “confession” of a co-accused can be said to be weak evidence, nonetheless, the 10. evidence was still to be relied upon by the trial Court subject to requirement of law. It is further contended that it cannot be said that there is no evidence on record. 5 ■ -f 11. Learned ' Public Prosecutor further contended that > Petitioners are not entitled to seek bail straightaway before this Court and that the Petitioners have to approach the concerned Special Court constituted to, deal with the offences under the Act for anticipatory bail. It was further contended that under the scheme of the said Act, the High Court acts as an appellate Court and not as an original Court, in view of Section 14A of the Act, and therefore. Petitioners cannot seek bail straightaway before this Court and therefore, the criminal petitions cannot be maintained. 1 12. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court opines as follows: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala^ and examined the scope of grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered for the offences under the Act and considered the evaluation of concept of anticipatory bail and after elaborately referring to various case law held that on a reading of the F.I.R., if allegations required for registration qf a crime under the Act are not made out, then the bar of Section 18 of the Act would apply ' 2024 see Online Se 2249 . 6 and the Courts would not be precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused. Paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the said Judgment was extracted below for ready reference: 41. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to "at first sight based on first impression". The expression "where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint or FIR" should be understood as "wlien based on first impression, no offence is made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint". This means that when the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out upon the reading of the complaint, case can be said to exist prima facie. 48. /As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to constitute the Offence under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegations levelled in the complaint or FIR, then in such circumstances, as per the consistent exposition by various decisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would not apply and the courts would not be absolutely precluded from granting arrest bail to the accused persons. 49. In our opinio^ the aforesaid is the only test that the court should apply, when an accused prays for anticipatory bail in connection with any offence alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the Act, 1989. In a given case, an accused may argue that although the allegations levelled in the FIR or the complaint do disclose the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989, yet the FIR or the complaint being palpably false account of political or private vendetta, the court should consider the plea for grant of anticipatory bail despite the specific bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989. However, if the accused puts forward the case of malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta then the same can be considered only by the High Court or no pre- on 7 ■ in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, powers under Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/FIR disclose a prima facie case. In other words, if all the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are borne out from the complaint, then the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable to the accused. 13. In a similar fact scenario, where anticipatory bail applications were filed straight away before this Court in cases arising under the Act, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the above judgment in Crl.P.Nos.‘5197 of 2024 and batch dated 06.01.2025. This Court after examining the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Provisions of the Act was of the opinion that concurrent jurisdiction as provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to offences under the Act as the high Court is only an appellate Court as per Section 14A of the Act. Learned single Judge was of the opinion that even going by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, it is only the special Court that can grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners and not High Court as the same would be in violation of Section 14A of the Act. \ 14. This order of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)No. 1497-1511/2025 by order dated 31.01.2025 and the SLP was dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioners to approach the trial Court/Special Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. forthwith and for a period of two weeks, no coercive measures be taken against the Petitioners. This Court is bound by the precedent and the anticipatory bail applications filed straightaway before this Court which is only 15. an appellate Court under Section 14A of the Act, cannot be maintained and accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed for want of maintainability. 18. The Petitioners are at liberty to move the concerned Special Court constituted to deal with the offences under the Act for anticipatory bail. However, for a period of two weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Pulivendula U/G Police Station, Kadapa. 2. One CC to SRI. BUGULU SREETEJA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies RDB NM % X \ \ \'\ \ HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8613 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED