Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 459 (AP)

Babburi Vengal Rao v. State Sho

2022-04-27

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2022
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.30 of 2022 of Muppalla Police Station, Guntur District. 3. a case under Sections 504, 505(2), 294(b), 153(a) IPC and under Section 67 of the Information Technology act, 2000, was registered against him in the above crime. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.03.2022, the petitioner made some comments abusing the local M.L.a by name ambati Rambabu in Gharshana Media Youtube channel. The said comments and abuses made by the petitioner in the said Youtube channel against the said M.L.a have created differences between the workers of the said party and it has created differences between the two caste people. Therefore, the F.I.R was lodged by the de facto complainant who is claiming to be the party man of the said M.L.a with the said allegations. So, it is stated that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 153a IPC has absolutely no application to the facts of the case as it is not the case of the prosecution that the said words are uttered by the petitioner on the ground of any religion, race, place of birth, residence, caste or community and to create any disharmony or feelings of enmity etc., between any such two religious, regional groups or castes or communities. He would also submit that similarly Section 505(2) IPC also has no application to the facts of the case as it is not the case of the prosecution that any such words are uttered by the petitioner touching the caste, religion etc., as contemplated under Section 505(2) IPC. He would further contend that the facts of the case also do not constitute any offence punishable under Section 294(b) and 504 IPC. So, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the facts of the case constitute at least the offence punishable under Section 505(2) IPC. So, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the facts of the case constitute at least the offence punishable under Section 505(2) IPC. He would submit that the petitioner has abused the local M.L.a in a Youtube channel which was published in the social media and this has created ill-feelings between the party men of the said M.L.a. So, he would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the said Criminal Petition. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has made certain comments and also abused the local M.L.a by name ambati Rambabu in Youtube channel which was published in the social media. The said M.L.a did not lodge any report against the petitioner with the police. It is the de facto complainant, who is claiming to be the party man, lodged the report. a perusal of the contents of the report shows that even the said comments or abuses which are allegedly made against the M.L.a. are made in the individual capacity of the said M.L.a. It has nothing to do with the religion, caste, regional groups or communities and there is nothing to indicate from the contents of the F.I.R that they are made with an intention to bring disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between two religious or regional groups or castes or communities. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the case do not prima facie constitute any offences punishable under Section 153(a) or under Section 505(2) IPC. although in a vague manner, it is stated that the said comments are made to bring ill-feelings between castes, a holistic reading of the F.I.R shows that the said comments or abuses are made individually against the said M.L.a and it was not made with an intention to bring ill-feelings or disharmony among any caste people. The facts of the case also do not prima facie attract any offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC also. at best, the facts narrated in the F.I.R show that an offence of defamation is made out from the said facts of the case. The facts of the case also do not prima facie attract any offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC also. at best, the facts narrated in the F.I.R show that an offence of defamation is made out from the said facts of the case. If that be the case, the said M.L.a by name ambati Rambabu has to initiate prosecution under Section 500 IPC in view of Section 199 Cr.P.C by way of filing a private complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. 9. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in the above crime, he shall be forthwith released on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of Muppalla Police Station, Guntur District.