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 petitioner is A.3 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 Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. A complaint was lodged on 23.11.2024 by one Darelli Rajiv Gandhi against the Petitioner and in the complaint it is alleged that Kanne Kanti 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 and others had posted news and photos in various 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.

5. 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.

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, carry maximum sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment and by default would be entitled to notice under Section 35(3) 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, (1 (2014) 8 SCC 273).

8. As noted above, the only bar for issuing notice under 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.

9. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

10. Contentions: It is the contention of the learned counsel for 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 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.

11. 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 voluntary and they had admitted in detail the role played by the Petitioner