IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8674 OF 2024 & 8314 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8674 OF 2024 Between: Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy, S/o. Sarvothama Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.4-3-256, Parnapalli Road, Behind Rishi School, Rishi Colony, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused No.3 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 132 of 2024 of Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle, Sri Satya Sai District for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 79 of BNS and 3(1 )(w), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 66(e) of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. ■9^ S' I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 ' Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS, 2023 or 438 (1-A) 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 to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crime No. 132 of 2024 of Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle, Sri Satya Sai District for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 79 of BNS and 3(1 )(w), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 66(e) of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8314 OF 2024 Between: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, S/o S. Ramakrishna Reddy Aged about 35 years Resident of Villa No. 85 Raintree Park Villas, Namburu Village Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT f Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No. 2 Anticipatory Ball in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 132 of 2024 of Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle, Sri Satya Sai District for the offences punishable under 61(2), 111 (2) (b), 196, 79 of BNS, 3(1 )(W), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 66 (e) of Information Technology Act, 200- 2008. on l-A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS or U/s 528 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 to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the event of arrest in Crime No. 132 of 2024 of Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle, Sri Satya Sai District for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 111 (2) (b), 196, 79 of BNS, 3(1 )(W), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 66 (e) of Information Technology Act, 200-2008 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R Yella Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: APHC010540382024 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: 8674/2094 [3460] Between: Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8314/2024 Between: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition Nos.8674 and 8314 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: The present applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Both the applications arise out of the same complaint. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as under: 3. The Petitioners are A.2 and A.3 in Crime No. 132 of 2024 on the file of Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle, Sri Satya Said District filed for the offences under Sections 61(2), 111 (2) (b), 196 and 79 of BNS and Sections 3(1) (w) and 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 66(e) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. As per the complaint, one A.Pavan Kumar, the complainant, was working as State Secretary of Telugu Desam Party in the social media wing of Telugu Desam Party. It is stated that on 02.11.2024, while the complainant was browsing his facebook account, he noticed an account belonging to one 2 N.Balaji Reddy, wherein several posts were made defaming the public representatives, women leaders by morphing their photos and circulating the same in facebook. 5. In the remand report, it is mentioned that during their investigation, L.W.2 produced the screenshots circulated by the accused in the social media i.e. facebook which are derogatory to the personal life of Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha, Home Minister of the State of A.P., who belongs to Scheduled Caste community and noting such derogatory posts, the Investigating Officer had added Sections 3(1) (W) and 3(2) (Va) of the Act. It is further stated that N.Balaji Reddy, voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer and on his free volition of mind confessed that he opened facebook account under the name and style NENU MAVA” and also instagram account under the user name Balaji 07 with password 901090 and used to circulate the photos which were uploaded by the central committee situated at Tadepalli in the facebook in the support of YSRCP political party during the year 2022. It is alleged that he confessed that he is a member in social media centre group which was opened in the name of Jagananna Connects and the Petitioners were acting as the organi2srs for the said central group and one Vinod is acting 3 as Admin and totally more than 80 members are actively , participating in the activities of the said group. 6. Further, it was allegedly confessed that the rival political leaders are constantly criticizing the Government and decided to tarnish their image in the eyes of the public by circulating posts through social media platform. He further confessed that on 19.09.2022 and 19.01.2023 he received a posting through their social media platform pertaining to morphing pictures of Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha which degrades her character and is abusive in nature. Similar postings were made regarding other senior political leaders holding Constitutional posts in the present Government. Further details of the remand report need not be referred for the purpose of this case. As per the detailed remand report, the accused produced the mobile phone which was used by him and the same was sent to A.P FSL to retrieve data to prove the offence technically. While the investigation is still in progress, the present applications are filed. 7. Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri R.Yella Reddy and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. - p 4 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 that the Petitioners are being implicated only for political 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. 8. reasons. 9. It was further contended 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 chargesheet. Section 111 of the BNS is not attracted. 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 Act and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioners. was 10. Learned counsel further contended that the confession of co-accused has extremely poor evidentiary value and such 5 . 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 the Section 111 of the BNS cannot be applicable to the present cases. Learned Public Prosecutor, in response, had produced the details of the social media posts made by the account holders 11. and contended that such derogatory posts having been made solely at the instance of the Petitioners, 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 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 m 6 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 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. 12. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that Petitioners are not entitled to seek bail straighta.way 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 7 this Court and therefore, the criminal petitions cannot be maintained. 14. 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. After elaborately referring to various case law held that on a reading of the F.I.R., if allegations required for registration of a crime under the Act are not made out, then the bar of Section 18 of the Act would apply 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; 47. Prime facie is a Latin term that translates to "at first sight" or "based on first impression". The expression "where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint or FIR" should be understood as "when 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, no case can be said to exist prima facie. ' 2024 see Online Se 2249 8 48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to constitute the Offence under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prime 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 pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. 49. In our opinion, 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 on 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 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. 9 %- The question urged by the learned Public Prosecutor was as to which Court should consider grant of anticipatory bail i.e. High Court or the Special Court under the Act. 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. 15. 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 parties therein to approach the trial Court/Special 16. • J 10 coercive measures be Court and for a period of two weeks, no taken against the parties therein. This Court is bound by the precedent and the anticipatory before this Court which is only 14A of the Act, cannot be 17. bail applications filed straightaway be appellate Court under Section accordingly these criminal petitions are dismissed an maintained and for want of maintaihability. the concerned The Petitioners are at liberty to move deal with the offences under the Act 18. Special Court constituted to for anticipatory baii. However, for a period of two weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners. miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand As a sequel, the dismissed. ARI Sd/- K.KASIRAO Aj ASSISTANT REGt^ TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer. Roddam Police Station, Penukonda Circle Sri Satya Sai District 2. One CC to Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R Yella Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two GO’S to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC DAM & HIGH COURT DATED: 07/05/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.8674 of 2024 & 8314 of 2024 ANO^ S 0 8 SEP 2025 o\ mii 'I*. DISMISSING BOTH THE CRLPs