APHC010503062024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8068/2024 Between:

Tiyyagura Suma ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Criminal Petition No.8068 of 2024

O R D E R:

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.2 in Crime No.522 of 2024 on the file of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District filed for the offences under Sections 352, 353(1)(c), 353(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 340(2), 336(4), 356(2) read with 49 and 61(2) of BNS.

4. As per the complaint, posts making derogatory comments against the present Deputy Chief Minister were spread in social media and the said posts also contain a female voice and some of the comments for the said post were likely to create negative sentiments among different religions. The above crime was registered on 31.10.2024.

5. In the course of investigation, the Accused A.1 had confessed that he along with A.2 to A.11 conspired with a common intention to systematically target rival political groups through creation and dissemination of morphed and fabricated photos on social media. These manipulated media contained defamatory, derogatory and abusive comments against political adversaries. It is further stated that such actions go beyond defaming the individuals and poses significant threat to public peace and law and order with a potential to disturb communal harmony in the State.

6. The offence alleged, in short, was that derogatory/abusive posts were spread in social media platforms against the rival political leaders holding Constitutional posts.

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 with Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, [(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 Y.Nagi Reddy representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, 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