IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE the honourable sriSe nyapathy CRIMINAL PFTiTinKi up, Raa, r,p VIJAY Between: Ponnur Town, Guntur District -No.8-3-3, 1 Ward, Nidubrole, 4^' 58 years, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. Nagar, Agriculture, ^e^dent^of D^No*^98 ^Vellaluru p Guntur District. ^ ya, Vellaluru village, Ponnur Mandal, ■..Petitioners/Proposed Accused AND of Andhra Pradesh of A.P at Amaravathi. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ■-Respondent/Defacto-Complainant 438 of Cr.P.C Petition under Section praying that in the - of Criminal Petition, petitioners on bail in tlie on the file of circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court may be pleased to release the event of their arrest im connection with Crime No.275 of 2024 Chebrolu Poiice Station, Guntur District. Vutupaili Rajanna Adla^rr the P T Sri (tg/ap) on behalf 0^::::: The Court made the following order: r APHC010552902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8892/2n?4 [3460] Between: Nannapaneni Ankineedu Chowdary and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitloner/accused{S): 1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: r HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8892 of 2024 ORDER: The present application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. ■ 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The Petitioners are Proposed Accused in Crime No.275 of 2024 on the file of Chebrolu Police Station, 'Guntur District filed for the offences under Sections 351(2) and 79 of BNS and Section 66-E of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. As per the complaint, one P.Brahmananda Reddy, describing himself as Booth Convener of Kothareddypalem Village had given a complaint stating that from an account of facebook registered in the name of Gopi Lai Shaik there are insulting posts against the Hon’ble Chief Minister and his son and that 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. V 2 posts regarding the leaders are causing mental agony. In the F.I.R., the said Gopi Lai Shaik was shown as Accused No.1. The Petitioners apprehending arrest in the said case, filed this petition for anticipatory bail. Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the 5. Petitioners and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioners did not. substantiate as 6. I to the basis for the apprehension and as to why the Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in a case in which they are not shown as accused and when the allegation is against one Gopi Lai Shaik. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in 7. the case is in process and as on date, the Petitioners are not arrayed as accused and their role in the offence is not yet crystallized. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the absence of the Petitioners being arrayed as accused, the I application seeking anticipatory bail cannot be maintained. In that context, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar 3 Sadhuram Mulchandanr 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 c(own a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be ‘reason to granted. The applicant must show that he has 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 to make an accusation against him, In pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the 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 determine whether the applicant has reasoh 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. one IS going court can ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 '(1980) 2 see 565 ■'Jt- 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. 9. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, since no basis has been established by the Petitioners anticipating their arrest in the above crime, at this stage, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1- The Station House Officer, Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District. -[OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, Advocate 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8892 of 2024 a 0 J AUG 2025 Sectig0,x^^ dismissing the crlp