IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT iO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8802 OF 2024 Between: 1. Kannekanti Sajjena Rao, S/o.Ratnam, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Fort Road, Nandigama, NTR District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, NTR Commissionarate Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.429/2024 on the file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR Commissionarate. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalfof the Respondent. The Court made the following order: APHC010548712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] , I If WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8802/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Kannekanti Sajjena Rao AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8802 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. The petitioner is A.1 in Crime No.429 of 2024 on the file of Nandigama Police Station, NTR Commissionerate filed for the offences under Sections 192,196, 336(4), 340(2), 353(2), 61(2), 111(2)(b) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. A complaint was lodged on 23.11.2024 by one Darelli Rajiv Gandhi against the Petitioner and in the complaint it is alleged that Kannekanti Sajjana Rao, Karimullah, Sakshi news reporter Suguna Sekhar Rao and some others have morphed the photos of the present elected Constitutional functionaries with a malicious intent to discredit and bring disrepute to them. It was also stated in the complaint that misinformation is being spread about the Government and its schemes and that the Petitioner 4. f . 2 and others had posted news and photos in vario,us social media platforms such as Garuda Netra, WatsApp, K.C.L., GK News, N.Times, NTR News, Voice of Public and Surya Daily etc., to defame them and create conflicts among the parties. It is also stated that the clippings and paper cuttings were enclosed with the complaint. From the narration of facts, there is no certainty as to which specific post is being referred to and how it is derogatory or defamatory is also not mentioned. A reading of the complaint reflects absolute vagueness. 5. 6. The Petitioner is arrayed as accused on the basis of confessions made by the co-accused i.e. persons in whose names the social media accounts were registered. The common thread of allegations against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is in-charge of the social media of YSRCP and that the derogatory/abusive posts were made by the social media account holders at the instance of the Petitioner. 7. The offences under which the Petitioner was charged barring Section 111 of the BNS and the offences alleged carry maximum'seRtence of seven (7) years imprisonment and by 3 default would be entitled to notice under Section 35 of the BNSS which is in pari materia of 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 9. 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 P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for 10. the Respondents. Contentions: It is the contention of the learned counsel for 11. 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 M2014)8SCC 273 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 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. 12. 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 voluntaryand 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 well-oiled network attracts the offence under Section 111 of the BNS. Thj^ ^earned Public Prosecutor contended that the organized derogatory posts at the instance of the Petitioner 5 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. Learned Public Prosecutor had pointed out that there is no 13. 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 14. falls for consideration in this case is ‘whether the Petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage’? Reasoning: Before going into the applicability of Section 15. 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: T ' 6 Section 111. (1) Any continuing unlawful 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, 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-sectipn, “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; (0 (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;; 16. 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 r /' specific derogatory posts made termed to be abusive from the prosecution could not specify any the Petitioner which could be view point of a matured citizen. by is that explanation (ii) to Continuing unlawful activity” chargesheet against the accused in the The second aspect of the issue 17. Section 111 of the BNS defining mandates more than one the date of registration of the crimes has been pointed out as to the previous ten years. As on against the Petitioner, nothing chargesheet against the Petitioner for the pendency of any - offences referred in Section 111 of the BNS in the preceding 10 years. at the time of of offence under Section 111 in consonance with the the matter of of any chargesheet In the absence 18. registration of crime, the registration of the BNS at this stage appears to be not in requirement of law. The High Court of Kerala in of Kerala^ after referring to the Mohammed Hashim v. State of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Judgement of Maharashtra v. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and ^ 2014 see Online Ker 26557 others^ arising under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOC’ Act) held that two chargesheets 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. are 19. The Learned Public Prosecutor had filed Crl.P.No.8059 of 2024 vide USR No.12840 of 2025 and a memo in as per the memo, all the crimes registered against the Petitioner different Districts across the State in the year 2024 are under investigation. In the absence of any chargesheet in the preceding in 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. 20. 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 jLJdgement, the application seeking quash of the crime was ^2015) 14 see 272 " 2024 see online AP 5532 = 2024 see Online All 8095 9 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. 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. 21. (2014) 8 see 273 Sd/- G HELANAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ft/ SECTION OFFICER House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, NTR To 1. The Station Commissionarate CC to Sri. P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] CC Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. [OUT] 2. One 3. Two 4. Three CD Copies US GSC . ^ HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER I 25JUL 2025 a ^’^££spatcw£2^^ CRLP.No.8802 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION