Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 454 (AP)

Gutta Dhanunjaya v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-13

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner / sole accused seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.390 of 2020 on the file of Anantapur IV Town Police Station, Anantapur District for the offences punishable under Sections 153 (a) & 505 (2) IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant viz. G.V.Linga Reddy presented a report to the police alleging that an unknown accused under the name and style of Dhanu TDP posted comments in abusive and unparliamentary language through Facebook against the Rajya Sabha MP Vijaysai Reddy. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime is registered. 3. Heard Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint does not disclose the offences under Section 153 (a) & 505 (2) IPC and also the objectionable words used in the social media, which attract the penal section mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that even if the allegations are taken to be true on the face of it, the aggrieved party will be Mr.Vijaysai Reddy, who is a Rajya Sabha member, but not the defacto complainant. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that as the petitioner had made very abusive comments against the Member of Parliament, he is not entitled for any relief from this Court and moreover, the investigation in this case is pending. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it disclosed that the petitioner has posted comments in social media which are very abusive and the petitioner used unparliamentary language while referring to the Member of Parliament. When a specific query is put by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the comments were posted by the petitioner or not, learned counsel has not denied, but however submitted that even assuming that the allegations are made by the petitioner, they do not attract the offences charged. He submitted mainly on the technical grounds and sought for enlargement of petitioner on bail. 7. It has become the present day trend on the social media that anybody and everybody can post whatever they want to post. He submitted mainly on the technical grounds and sought for enlargement of petitioner on bail. 7. It has become the present day trend on the social media that anybody and everybody can post whatever they want to post. They have crossed all the barriers and now the social media has become a forum for abusive posts. This trend has been going rampantly and they do not even have the fear that they will be punished. In majority cases people though notice these kinds of posts are keeping quiet without initiating any action and they are taking a clue from this. It is high time that this kind of people should be punished suitably. 8. This Court is not inclined to take into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioner in this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On the face of it the comments that are posted on the social media by the petitioner are highly deprecated and this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in this type of cases. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. In the result, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.