IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4905 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. G.Satish Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4903 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. MA Wasim Akram Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8416 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. Koutam Sathish Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI % 10.09.2025 # Between:

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4905 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. G.Satish Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4903 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. MA Wasim Akram Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8416 OF 2025 Between:

Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Petitioner/Accused VERSUS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. Koutam Sathish Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao ^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-

State.

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), 3. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)

4. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221

5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1

6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) SCR Supl. (2)

769

7. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1

8. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

9. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

COMMON ORDER

I have heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

2. As the crimes are arising out of similar factual matrix and the petitioner/accused is alleged to have committed the offences within the scope of self same sections of prosecution, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated in this common order.

3. Criminal Petition No. 4905 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No. 8 of 2025 registered at Police Station, CCPS Ramagundam, Telangana Cyber Security Bureau (“TSCSB”) against the petitioner/accused.

Pursuant to a report lodged by Respondent No. 2, the said police station registered a case alleging commission of offences under Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 352, and 356 read with Section

61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (“ITA, 2008”). The allegation is that the petitioner, using the Twitter handle @Nallabalu, posted a tweet criticising the Congress Party in the following terms:

“Congress is the scourge of the state! If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.”

4. Criminal Petition No. 4903 of 2025 is likewise filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashment of the proceedings in