Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
APHC010503122024
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: 8067/2024
Between:
Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8117/2024
Between:
Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8675/2024
Between:
Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8900/2024
Between:
Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Criminal Petition Nos.8067, 8117, 8675 and 8900 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
The present applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. In all these criminal petitions Sirigirreddy Arjun Reddy is the Petitioner.
2. Brief facts of each of the case are as under:
3. Crl.P.No.8067 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.2 in Crime No.263 of 2024 on the file of Gudivada II Town Urban Police Station, Krishna District filed for the offences under Sections 192, 196, 336(4), 340(2), 353(2), 111(2)(b), 61(2) and 79 of the BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology, Act, 2000.
4. A complaint was lodged on 3.11.2024 by one Akunuri Sriram Kanakabharam against the Khaja Baba Mohammad regarding abusive posts in social media. Initially, Khaja Baba Mohammed was arrayed as Accused No.1 in the crime. During investigation, it came to light that Petitioner and others on behalf of YSRCP political party were allegedly paying the Khaja Baba Mohammed for posting derogatory content and are the main 4 accused in the case and hence, the Petitioner was implicated as A.2 in the crime.
5. Crl.P.No.8117 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.2 in Crime No.165 of 2024 on the file of Kadiri Rural Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District filed for the offences under Sections 196, of BNS and 66 of Information Technology Act, 20000. Subsequently, Section 111(2)(b) of BNS was added in the remand report.
6. A complaint was lodged on 02.11.2024 by one Shaik Mohhamed Juned against one Malaka Amarnath Reddy regarding abusive posts in social media and he was initially arrayed as Accused No.1. Basing on the confession of the Malaka Amarnath Reddy the Petitioner and others on behalf of YSRCP political party were allegedly paying the original accused for posting derogatory content and are the main accused in the case, the Petitioner was implicated as A.2 in the crime.
7. Crl.P.No.8675 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.3 in Crime No.213 of 2024 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, East Godavari District filed for the offences under Sections 196, 353(2) of BNS and subsequently 61(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 336(4), 340(2), 5 353(2), 356(2) of BNS and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 were added in the remand report.
8. A complaint was lodged on 07.11.2024 by one Borra Chinni Babu against one Inturi Ravi Kiran regarding abusive posts in social media. Based on the confession of the said Inturi Ravi Kiran, the Petitioner was implicated as A.3 in the crime.
9. Crl.P.No.8900 of 2024: The Petitioner is Proposed Accused No.3 in Crime No.228 of 2024 on the file of Macherla Town Police Station, Palnadu District filed for the offences under Sections 61(2), 111(2) (b), 196, 352 and 353 of BNS and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
10. A complaint was lodged on 10.11.2024 by one Kabhampati Anil Kumar against one Inturi Ravi Kiran regarding abusive posts in social media. Based on the confession of the said Inturi Ravi Kiran that Petitioner and others on behalf of YSRCP political party were allegedly paying the original accused for posting derogatory content and are the main accused in the case, the Petitioner was implicated as A.2 in the crime.
6
11. The offence alleged, in short, was that derogatory/abusive posts were spread in social media platforms against the rival political leaders holding Constitutional posts.
12. The Petitioner was 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 in all the cases is that they are 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.
13. The offences under which the Petitioner were charged in all the cases, 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.
14. As noted above, the only bar for issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is Section 111 of the BNS and the entire arguments revolved around applicability of Section 111 of BNS to the facts of the case.
7
15. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
16. 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 cases.
8
17. 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. He also contended that the abusive social media posts at the instance of rival political party were made by the co- accused/account holders for remuneration and the same being a well-oiled network attracts the offence under Section 111 of the BNS. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the organized derogatory posts at the instance of the Petitioner amounted to „organized crime‟. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the abusive social media posts were made prior to the onset of the BNS and also thereafter and therefore Section 111 of the BNS is applicable to the facts of the case.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor had pointed out that there is no requirement of two chargesheets against the accused in the previous 10 years and submitted that filing of complaints would suffice. He further contended that the evidentiary value of the 9 confession of co-accused is an aspect for appreciation by the trial Court.
19. Issue: Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration in these cases is „whether the Petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage‟?
20. Reasoning: Before going into the applicability of Section 111 of the BNS, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 111 of the BNS so that there is ease in explaining the scope and applicability of the provision. Section 111 of the BNS reads as under:
Section 111.
(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,-- (i) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more 10 persons who, act ing either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity;
(ii) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence;;
21. The primary requirement to attract "organised crime" is that the unlawful activity should be for material benefit for the accused including financial benefit in view of the wording "to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit,"
occurring in Section 111(1) of the BNS as above. The term "material benefit including a financial benefit" is not defined in the BNS. Though similar wordings are used in defining "organised crime" in the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and UN Protocol against Smuggling of migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the said term occurring in Article 2(a) thereof was not defined. The Article 2(a) of the Convention reads as under:
Article 2 (a): "Organized criminal group" shall mean a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a period of time and BNSing in concert with the aim of 11 committing one or more serious crimes or offences established in accordance with this Convention, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.
22. The definition of "organised crime" in the Acts of the State like A.P. Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 etc., is slightly different. The Section 2(e) of the A.P. Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 which is similar in Acts akin thereto is extracted below:
Section 2 (e) "organised crime" means may continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion of other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.
23. In the absence of any specific explanation as to what constitutes material benefit, it would be appropriate to rely on common understanding. In general sense, the term "material benefit" refers to tangible benefits that can be expressed in terms of money or property or is referable to some visible benefit and not a perceptual benefit. In these cases, what material 12 benefit the Petitioner obtained assuming that the confession of co-accused is taken to be true is not forthcoming at this stage.
24. 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.
25. 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 in the matter of Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala1 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 others2 arising under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short „MCOC‟ Act) held that two 1 2014 SCC Online Ker 26557 2 (2015) 14 SCC 272 13 chargesheets are a requirement for registering an offence under Section 111 of the BNS. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Pappula Chalama Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3 in W.P.No. 26769 of 2024, disposed of on 18.12.2024.
26. The Learned Public Prosecutor had filed a memo in 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.
27. The reliance by the learned Public Prosecutor on the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case of Jitesh Jha v. State of U.P4 appears to be misplaced. In the said judgement, the application seeking quash of the crime was rejected after taking note of the fact that four chargesheets and cognisance in two cases by the concerned Court are sufficient 3 2024 SCC online AP 5532 4 2024 SCC Online All 8095 14 compliance to invoke Section 111 of the BNS. The principal argument in that case that the chargesheets registered prior to the advent of the BNS cannot be taken into consideration for invocation of Section 111 of the BNS was rejected.
28. Result: In that view and in order to maintain consistency, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the Station House Officers concerned to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS (Section 41-A of the erstwhile Cr.P.C.) scrupulously, as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another5. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date:07.05.2025 KLP 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273