m THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE m '<b # lo PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINALPETITION NO: 8676 OF 2024 Between: Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy, S/o.Sarvothama Reddy, Aged about 30 years, C'cc; Business, R/o.D.No.4-3-256, Parnapalli Road, Behind Rishi School, Rishi Colony, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner/ Proposed Accused No.2 AND T|ie State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor gh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. H ...Respondent/Complainant Btition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C) that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the ?r/Proposed Accused No.2 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his Crime No.495 of 2024 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur for the offences punishable under sections 61(2), 79, 111(1), ^ BNS and Secs. 66E,67,67A of Information Technology Act 2000- P praying Crimina Petition! arrest ir District 353(2) c 2008. I-A. NO: 1 OF 2024 r Petition under Section 482(1) of BNSS, 2023 (U/sec.438(1-A) of Cr.P.C) of Gr.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/pro posed Accused No.2 in Crime No.495 of 2024 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 79, 111(1), 353(2) of BNS and Secs.66E, 67, 67A 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 on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: APHC010S40322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8676/2024 [3460] Between: Sirigireddy Arjun 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: % >■ V ■ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8676 of 2024 i.ORDER: The present application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. I Brief facts of the case are as under; 2. 3. The petitioner is Proposed Accused No.2 in Crime No.495 of 2024 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District filed for the offences under sections 61(2), 79, 111(1), 353(2) of BNS and Sections 66E, 67, 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the complaint, one Kandru Rajesh Babu had given a complaint stating that from an account of facebook registered in the name of Parvatha Sudhakar Reddy insulting posts were , I posted against the Hon’ble Chief Minister and;,his wife and these posts are promoting false information in the minds of general public. It is also alleged that morphed photographs of Government Officers and politicians using vulgar language are also posted and the complainant sought to take action as these 4. I f 1 2 In the posts regarding the leaders are causing mental agony. I-.I.R., the said Parvatha Sudhakar Reddy was shown as Accused No.1. The Petitioner apprehending arrest in the said case, filed this petition for anticipatory bail. Heard Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor b. [or the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner did not substantiate as to E). foe basis for the apprehension and as to why the Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case in which they are not shown as accused and when the allegation is against one Parvatha Sudhakar Reddy. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in foe case is in process and as on date, the Petitioner is not i I I , , brrayed as accused and his role in the offence is not yet brystallized. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the absence of the Petitioner being arrayed as accused, the application seeking anticipatory bail cannot be maintained. In that context, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme CourT'ifr Vijaykutnar Gopichand Ramchanclani v. Amar 7. 1 3 Sadhuram Mulchandanf and the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab^. ■ 8. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court opines as under; The Hon^ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia’s ( case (2 supra) held as under; 35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has “reason to believe” that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be prrested. The grounds on whichithe belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court determine whether the applicant has reason.to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. can ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 M1980)2SCC 565 \ 4 Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace: Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individuals liberty; it is neither a ^passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. ' ' ' Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, since no basis has been established by the Petitioner I anticipating his arrest in the above crime, at this stage, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. As ^. sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. , i,;, . i ^ ^ ' • - 9. Aoo.o^ Sd/-USRIDEVI assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER Mangalagiri Rural Police Station //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Station House Officer, District. 2. One CC to Sri. Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy. Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravati [OUT] 4. Thi'ee CD Copies Guntur High Court of Andhra Pradesh at RDB sree w HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8676 of 2024 i 22 SEP 2025 | ^ . Current Section , I Wi I •, *9 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION