S Bhargav Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

punishable under Sections 111 (2), 61, 192, 196, 336(4), 340 (2), 352 (2) read with 3 (5) of BNS, 66 and 67 W Information Technology Act on the file of the SHO, Of Kadiri Rural U/G Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum Grounds of Criminal the arguments Sri R YELLA REDDY, Advocate for the of High Court of Andhra Pradesh Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor Petition hearing on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 83?n of Between: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, S/o S. Ramakrishna years Resident of Villa No. 85, Raintree Park Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District Reddy, Aged about 35 Villas, Namburu Village, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Public Prosecutor High Court ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of 2023 BNSS, is filed praying that in the in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner Accused circumstances stated i the High Court No. 1 on Anticipatory Ball in the event of his arrest in Crime No 213 of 2024 of Praksah Nagar Police Station East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 111(2) (b), 196, 336(4), 340 (2), 353 (2) Petition (2) and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000. LA. NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS is filed praying that in the Petition, crcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the ^ Petitioner/Accused No.1 Crime No 213 of 2024 of Praksah Nagar Police Station, East Godavari District for the offenC punishable under Sections 196, 336(4), 340 (2), 353 (2), 356 (2) and 67 of 111(2) (b), 61 (2). Information Technology Act, 2000. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R YELLA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8545 OF 2024 Between; S BHARGAV REDDY, S/o S. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 35 years Resident of Villa No. 85, Raintree Park Villas, Namburu Village, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of 2023 BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / proposed Accused No. 2 on Anticipatory Ball in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 495 of 2024 of Mangalagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 79, 111 (1), 353 (2) of BNS and 66E, 67, 67A of Information Technology Act 2000- 2008. I.A. NO; 1 OF 2024 Guntur District Station, Police Rural Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/proposed Accused No.2 in Crime No. 495 of 2024 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 79. 111 (1)r353 (2) of BNS and 66E, 67. 67A of Information Technology Act 2000-2008. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R YELLA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8550 OF 2024 Between: S Bhargav Reddy, S/o S. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 35 Resident of Villa No. Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District Raintree Park Villas, Namburu Village, 85, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of BNSS of 2023, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No. 2 on Anticipatory Ball in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 189 of 2024 of B. Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353 (1) (C). 353 (2). 61 (1) (a), 79, 111 (2) (b). 192 read with 3 (5) of BNS and 67 (A) of Information Technology Act 2000-2008. I.A. NO: 1 OF 209d Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/proposed Accused No.2 in Crime No. 189 of 2024 of B. Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353 (1) (C). 353 (2), 61 (1) (a), 79, 111 (2) (b), 192 read with 3 (5) of BNS and 67 (A) of Informatiort Technology Act 2000-2008. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R YELLA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8854 OF 2024 Between: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, S/o S. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 35 years Resident of Villa No. 85, Raintree Park Villas, Namburu Village, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of BNSS of 2023 , is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No. 2 on Anticipatory Ball in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 228 of 2024 of Macherla Town Police Station, Palnadu District for the offences punishable under 62 (2), 196, 352, 353, 111 (2) (b) of BNS and Section 67 of IT Act 2000-2008. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 (1) of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No. 228 of 2024 of Macherla Town Police station, Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 62 (2) 196, 352, 353, 111 <2) (b) of BNS and Section 67 of IT Act 2000-2008. This Petition, coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum Petition and upon hearing the arguments of of Grounds of Criminal Sri R YELLA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following Common Order: *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY +^iminal Petitions Nqs.8059. Si 14, 8320. SSAq 8550 and 88SA nf % 07.05.2025 Between: S Bhargav Reddy And The State of Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ponnavolu Sudhkar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent(S): Public Prosecutor senior counsel for Sri R.Yella Reddy ...RESPONDENT(S) < Gist ; > Head Note: ? Cases Referred; 1 2014 see Online Ker 26557 (2015) 14 sec 272 2024 sec online AP 5532 2024 sec Online All 8095 (2014) 8 sec 273 2017(2) sec 514 APh6010S02082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8059/2024 Betv^een: S Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.R YELLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8114/2024 Between: S. Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8320/2024 Between: 2 Sajjala Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8545/2024 Between: S. Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8556/2024 Between: Main Sowjanya ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8854/2024 Between: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Court made the following: r HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VlJAY ^ ■'.•u Criminal Petitions Nos.8059. 8114. 8320. 8545. 8550 and 8854 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: The present applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. In all these petitions, Sajjala Bharnava Reddy is the Petitioner.

#2. Brief facts of each of the case are as under:

#3. Crl.P.No.8059 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.1 in Crime No.263 of 2024 on the file of Gudivada II Town Police Station, Krishna District filed for the offences under Sections 192, 196, 336(4), 340(2), 353(2), 79, 111(2)(b), 79 of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

#4. A complaint was lodged on 3.11.2024 by one Akunuri Sriram Kanakabaram against 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 Khaja Baba Mohammed for 2 posting derogatory content and are the main accused in the case and hence, the Petitioner was implicated as A.1 in the crime.

#5. Crl.P.No.8114 of 2024. The Petitioner is A.1 in Crim^ No. 165 of 2024 on the file of Kadiri Rural Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District filed for the offences under Section 196 of BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Sections 111(2), 61, 192, 196, 336(4), 340(2), 352(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections' 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were added subsequently in the remand report.

#6. A complaint was lodged on 02.11.2024 by one Shaik Mohhamed Juned against Malaka Amarnath Reddy regarding abusive posts in social media and he was initially arrayed as Accused No.1. It is alleged that Malaka Amarnath Reddy voluntarily revealed 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 and hence, the Petitioner was implicated as A.1 in the crime.

#7. Cri.P.No.8320 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.1 in Crime No.213 of 2024 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, East 3 Godavari District filed for the offences under Sections 196 and 353(2) of BNS and subsequently Sections 61(2), 111(2)(b), 196, 336(4), 340(2), 353(2), 356(2) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were added. 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! 1 in the crime.

#8. Crl.P.No.8545 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.2 in Crime No.495 of 2024 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station filed for the offences under Sections 61(2), 79, 111 (1), 353 (2) of BNS and Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

#9. A complaint was lodged on 17.11.2024 by one Kandru Rajesh Babu regarding abusive posts in social media against one Parvatha Sudhakar Reddy. Based on the complaint, the present Petitioner was implicated as A.2 in the crime. f

#10. Crl.P.No.8550 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.2 in Crime No. 189 of 2024 on the of Kpthakota Police Station, Annamayya District filed for the offences under Sections 352, 4 353(1 ){c) and 353(2) and subsequently, Sections 61(1)(a), 79, 111(2)(b) and 192 read with' 3(5) of BNS and Section 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were added in the remand report.

#11. A complaint was lodged on 4.11.2024 by one Chakana Raja against one Kurmaiahgari Hanumantha Reddy regarding abusive posts in social media. Basing on the confession of the said Kurmaiahgari Hanumantha Reddy that Petitioner and others on behalf of YSRCP political party were allegedly paying the original accused for posting derogatory content and are main accused in the case and hence, the Petitioner was implicated as A.2 in the crime

#12. Crl.P.No.8854 of 2024: The Petitioner is A.2 in Crime No.228 of 2024 on the file of Macherla Police Station, Palnadu District filed for the offences under Sections 61(2), 196, 352, 353 111(2)(b) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and subsequently. Section 62(2) of BNS was added in the remand report.

#13. A complaint lodged

10.11.2024 Kambhamapati Anil Kumar against Inturi Ravi Kiran regarding 5 r abusive posts in social media. Upon confession made by 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 and hence, the Petitioner was implicated gs A.2 in the crime.

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

#15. 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 the Petitioner is in-charge of the social media of YSRCP political party and that the derogatory/abusive posts were made by the social media account holders at the instance of the Petitioner.

#16. The offences under which the Petitioner was 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. 6

#17. 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 argument revolved around applicability of the Section 111 of the BNS to the facts of the case. These cases were heard along with a batch of cases of similar nature and this Court had disposed of four criminal petitions filed by the Petitioner i.e CrI.P.Nos.8860, 8876, 8877 and 8119 of 2024 by order dated

07.02.2025 with the consent of both the counsel to follow Section 35 (3) of BNSS before proceeding further against the Petitioner.

#18. Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhkar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri R.Yella Reddy for the Petitioner and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

#19. Contentions: It contention learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 111 of the BNS is not attracted of this case 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 made applicable qnly with an intent to ensure that there is no 7 i'equirement to follow Section 35 of the BNSS and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioner. Learned counsel further contended confession of co-accused 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.

#20. 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 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 organized derogatory posts at the instance of the Petitioner 8 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.

#21. Learned Public Prosecutor had pointed out that there i‘ 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 confession of co-accused is an aspect for appreciation by the trial Court.

#22. 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’?

#23. 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. ■m 9 (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 qr 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 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 persons who. acting 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 yvith 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;; 24 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,” 10 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 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 not defined. The Article 2(a) of the Convention reads as under: Article 2 fa): “Organized criminal group” shall mean a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a the aim of period of time- and acting in concert with committing or more serious crimes offences established in accordance with this Convention, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.

#25. 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 11 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.

#26. 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 benefit the Petitioner obtained assuming that the confession of co-accused is taken to be true is not forthcoming at this stage.

#27. 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. 12

#28. In the absence of any chargesheet at the time 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 Kerala^ 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 others^ arising under the Maharashtra Control of Organised . Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOC’ Act) 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 Pradesh^ in W.P.No. 26769 of 2024, disposed of on

18.12.2024.

#29. 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 ^ 2014 see Online Ker 26557 '(2015) 14 sec 272 ' 2024 see online AP 5532 13 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.

#30. 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.P^ 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 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.

#31. Result: ' In 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 2024 see Online All 8095 14 in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another^ As a sequel the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

#32. Tailpiece: A slight detour from the facts of the case. In the present day, vulgar, hate filled and abusive posts in social media have become the new age norm. The “trolls” as they are called, attract lightning responses all over and this is all the more when the point of reference is a celebrity or a political leader of stature and following. It appears that profanity thrives the business entities as they attract instantaneous reactions. In the opinion of this Court, every citizen has the right to lead a dignified life which is a human right recognised under the Constitution of India.

#33. The State Government is obligated to ensure that this right to dignified life of citizens is not infringed and it is in that context the list of expletives, swear, militant words and words akin thereto, should be identified by the State Government and executive instructions should be issued in exercise of their power under constitution, prohibiting usage of such words in the social media. ^(2014) 8 see 273. 15

#34. Pursuant thereto, the State Government may also consider instructing the intermediaries to “auto block” usage of such words on social media as was done by the intermediaries in the case of Sabu Mathew George V. Union of India and Others.^, while considering the advertisements in violation of Pre-conception Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. In that case, though there was initial resistance for blocking the advertisements, the intermediaries eventually came around and the concept of “auto block introduced and accepted. (See Paragraph 14 of Sabu Mathew’s case reported in 2017(2) SCC 514).

#35. The above observations of this Court may be considered by the State Government as expeditiously as possible. ® 2017 (2) SCC 514 Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice NYAPATHY VIJAY (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To,

#1. The Station House Officer, Gudivada II Town Urban Police Station Krishna District. House Officer, Kadiri Rural U/G Police Station, Sri Satya

#2. The Station Sai District.

#3. The Station House Officer, Praksah Nagar Police Station Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 4 The Station House Officer Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. 5 The Station House Officer, B. Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District.

#6. The Station House Officer, Macherla Town Police Station, Palnadu District. f

#7. One CC to Sri R Yella Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

#8. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#9. Nine (09) L.R. Copies

#10. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

#11. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.

#12. Three CD Copies GPC HIGH COURT DATED: 07/05/2025 ^ r9JUM2tl25 ?'^S£ui«ntSecJig^5/ O CO COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos. 8059, 8114, 8320, 8545, 8550 & 8854 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THESE CRLP’s