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 NOs: 8869 OF 2024 & 9074 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8fifi9 OF 2024 Between: Meda Krishna, S/o. Rama Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ; Bureau Chief of 360 News Channel R/o. D.No. 14-68-82, Govt. Hostal Road Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Tenali, Guntur District ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent 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 grant Anticipatory Bail to him by directing the police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 949 of 2024 of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ananda Kumar Vejandia, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public on behalf of the Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Respondent. I n CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9074 OF 2024 Between: Meda Krishna, S/o. Rama Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: Bureau Chief of = ' 360 News Channel, R/o. D.No.14-68-82, Govt. Hostal Road, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Tenali, Guntur District ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to him by directing the police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 332 of 2024 of dated 01-12-2024 of Vuyyuru Police Station, Krishna District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ananda Kumar Vejandia, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010551852024 [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8869/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Meda Krishna AND State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9074/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Meda Krishna AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Ap Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 .ANANDA KUMAR VEJANDLA Counsel for the Resporident/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 713 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition Nos.8869 and 9074 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: The present applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. In both the criminal petitions, the Petitioner is Meda Krishna. 2. Brief facts of each of the case are as under: 3. Crl.P.No.8869 of 2024: The Petitioner is Accused in Crime No.949 of 2024 on the file of Penamaluru Urban Police Station, Krishna District filed for the offences under Sections 192, 352, 353 (2) and 111(2) (b) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology, Act, 2000. A complaint was lodged on 29.11.2024 by one Sunkara Phalguna Sai Naren stating that he is General Secretary of Telugu Desam Party for Tadepalli Municipality’s 33'^^ Division. On 29.11.2024 at about 9.58 p.m., the complainant received information from known associates regarding false allegations being spread against Hon’ble MLA of Penamaluru Constituency t Sri Bode Prasad through the News 360 Telugu YouTube channel and was shared in a whatsapp group named “Amaravathi”. 4. 2 5. As per the complaint, the post against the MLA deliberately fabricated and provocative allegations were made against the MLA, which was presented as news to discredit their It is further mentioned in the complaint that false narratives were being circulated in social media platforms urging others to create unrest and the same was shared in multiple groups with an intent to extort money by threatening the individuals targeted by these posts. was leader. 6. Crl.P.No.9074 of 2024. The Petitioner is A.4 in Crime No.332 of 2024 on the file of Vuyyuru Town Police Station, Krishna District filed for the offences under Sections 192, 352, 353 (2), 111(2) (b) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology, Act, 2000. 7. The allegations in this crime are made verbatim similar to allegations made in Crime No.949 of 2024 on the file of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District. Based on the complaint. Petitioner was implicated as A.4 in this crime. 8. The offence alleged, in Short, was that derogatory/abusive posts were spread in social media platforms against the rival political leaders holding Constitutional posts. 3 Heard Sri Vejandia Ananda Kumar, learned counsel for the 9. Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. It is the contention of the learned 10. Contentions: counsel for the Petitioner that the complainant does not have any locus standi to file the complaint as even if the allegations are defamatory as alleged in the criminal case, only the affected party can file the complaint and third party is not entitled to file a complaint. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner is Bureau Chief of 360 News Media, a Satellite Channel and is committed to responsible dissemination of information and that the Petitioner nor the members of the team were involved in publishing false information through their news reporting. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of 11. allegations are such that any member of the General Public is entitled to file a case as their elected leader is being vilified by false allegations. 4 12. Having heard the respective counsel, prima facie, the nature of allegations that are mentioned in the complaint primarily regarding defamatory content against Sri Bode Prasad and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Narasimham v. T.V.Chokkappa^, held that when defamation is personal in nature, only the person defamed can initiate complaint. A third party cannot prima facie maintain the complaint. are 13. The second aspect of the issue is that explanation (ii) to Section 111 of the. BNS defining “Continuing unlawful activity” mandates more than one chargesheet against the accused in the previous ten years. As on the date of registration of the crimes against the Petitioner, nothing has been pointed out as to the pendency of any chargesheet against the Petitioner for the offences referred in Section 111 of the BNS in the preceding 10 years. 14. In the absence of any chargesheet at the time of registration of crime, the registration of offence under Section 111 ^ of the BNS at this stage appears to be not in consonance with the requirement of law. The High Court of Kerala ih the matter of I ‘(1972) 2 see 680 5 Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala^ after referring to the / Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others^ arising under the Maharashtra Control of Organised (for short ‘MCOC’ Act) held that two chargesheets are a requirement for registering an offence under Section 111 of the BNS. Similar view was taken by the Division Crime Act, 1999 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. The Learned Public Prosecutor had filed a memo in 15. Crl.P.No.8059 of 2024 vide USR No. 12840 of 2025 and as per ( the memo, all the crimes registered against the Petitioner in different districts across the State in the year 2024 are under investigation. In the absence of any chargesheet in the preceding 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. ' 2014 see Online Ker 26557 '(2015) 14 see 272 " 2024 see online AP 5532 6 16. The reliance by the learned Division Bench judgment of Jitesh Jha v. State of U.P^ said judgement, the application rejected after taking note of the fact cognisance in two cases by the compliance to invoke Section Public Prosecutor on the of High Court of Allahabad in the case appears to be misplaced. In the seeking quash of the crime was that four chargesheets concerned Court are sutficient 111 of the Act. The principal registered prior to consideration for and argument in that case that the chargesheets the advent of the BNS cannot be taken into invocation of Section 111 of the BNS was rejected. 17. Result In that viview and in order to maintain consistency, are disposed of directing the Station House the Criminal Petitions Officers concerned in Crime No.949 Penamaluru Urban Police Station of 2024 on the file of Krishna District and in Crime No.332 of 2024 Krishna District contemplated under Section on the file of Vuyyuru Town Police Station, procedure as 35(3) of BNSS (Section 41-A of the erstwhile Cr.P.C.) scrupulously, as per the guideiirres respectively to follow the enunciated ^2024 see Online All 8095 7 in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anothei^. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. (2014) 8 see 273 Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFieER Krishna District //TRUE eOPY// SEe' 1. The Station House Officer, Penamaluru Police Station 2. The Station House Officer, Vuyyuru Police Station, Krishna District 3. One CC to Sri Ananda Kumar Vejandia, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three OD Oopies To, at GPe sree high court DATED; 07/05/2025 \ COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.8869 of 2024 & 9074 of 2024 Disposing the criiminal petitions