The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telano 2. Sri MA Wasim Akrar Hyderabad Jana' rep by its Public Prosecutor, High court at n,"Hivli-ilrilb"?,:f #f,?:i+ffi.,r"rJ:fl l,i#;Iil,!;f 33;lL1!:,,,, ... RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Secl . ll1l.d it tu nru,l,.',ni';,,I:i"?3:#: fl';fi,l #,'i[ J3;'if.'?::lt t,t,.",, I n ;; ; ; [ [ in the int6rests;;;J;": uvber securitv Bureau (T( "tt::,,::1r[g,.ll_",..,n the circumstances : ii * i,#i ]:tffifs t.A. NO:2 OF 2025 Petition under Secl. . ll?l"d i,, u,. r,,r",",,.i;;'T ;*m-,_+;in+"5rfi#*-*+###**;*'.# j,H,i,i:1r#g,.ll_,,.,,n the circumstances rnterests of justice. ":"?;J This petition comino on for hor.;^^ ..^^_ ^ g,":lg._ or c,.i,i,li""3"io1#,- ::i.,"n;j"", fr:l:","n jfl 'si ; tol.'*T: I il I;;,: fl : ;T; f ;[ii,. m: " the Memorandum or iE - il'":ffi : :1, i : CRI MI NAL P ETIT ION N O: 84 16 0F 2025 Between: if '?.?y 3"?Xril,t,l1'tidhar Goud s/o Late Durgal Barraj, ased abour H No 4-123lc, sai cotonv,'' ;i;";#: Patancheru, Dist- sanga *""oo|'" ...pETtTtONER/ACCUSED no. 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2 sri Koutam sathish'.:ioarfr:fi$ff-"'e5dI:;:i,I'," santhoshnagar' Godi H No 17-4-43e' "'REsPoNDENT/DEFAcro-coMPLAINANT *i#i+:fu i##:{f*i'''i*jry"##JJ1fl;t l.A. NO: 2 oF2025 p P Petition under Section 528 of BNSS PraY ing that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Groun ds of Crimrnal P etition, the His h Court maY be leased to stay all further Proceedings lncluding the arrest of the etitioner/Accused No.2 in FIR No.146 ol 2025 of P.S GDK l-Town' Ramagundam, Pen ding disPosal of the Criminal Petition in the inte rests of justice erusing the Memorandum of r hearing,uPon P This Petition coming on fo earing the arg uments of and uPon h Sri T V Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Palle Nage shwar Rao, Criminal Petition Grounds of Public Prosec utor on behalf of the Respondent No' 1 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI cRt M INAL PETtTto NNO s.4905 4903 &84 16 of 202s co MMO NO RDER lhave heard A/lr T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and A,4r palle Nageshwar Rao, learned public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No..1 State 2. As the crimes are arisrng out of simrlar factual matrix and the petitioner/accused is alleged to have committed the offences within the scope of self same sections of prosecutron, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated ln this common order

3. Crimi nal Petition No 4905 of 2025 has been frled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhrta 2023 (for short 'the BNSS,) seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No B of 2025 registered at police Station, CCpS Ramagundam, Telangana Cyber Security Bureau ("f SCSB,,) against the petitioner/accused. Pursuant to a report lodged by Respondent No 2, the said pollce statlon registered a case atleging commission of offences* under Sections 192 353(1)(b)' 352 and 356 read wrth Section 2 NTR,J CRLPS 4905, 4903 & 8416 2025 61(2) of lhe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' 2023 ('BNS") and Section 67 of the lnformation Technology Act' 2O0B (fA' 2008') The allegation is that the petittoner' using the Twitter handle posted a tweet criticising the Congress Party in the @Nallabalu, following terms "Congress is the scourge of the state! lf the field is affected by the pest, the peopte witt be disturbed " Criminal Petitio n No. 490 3 of 2025 is likewise filed under 4 petitioner/accused ' Section 528 of BNSS' 2023 seeking quashment of proceedings in FIR No 13 ot 2025 registered at Police Station' CCPS Karimnagar, TSCSB' against the On the basis of a report by Respondent registered a case for offences punishable under Sections '1 92' 353(1Xb),352, and 356 read with Section 61(2) of BNS' along with Section 67 of lTA, 2008 |t is alleged that the petitioner posted on Twitter a photograph of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of No 2, the Police Telangana with the caPtion: "No Vrslon, No Mrssion, Onty 20% Commission! This is how the l|-month rule of the Revanth Reddy led Congress Government is in Telangana -" 3 cRres a065, a9o3 s, sa 16 )ro1; The complainant, a poilce constable, alleges that this post was intended to provoke public unrest, defame the Chref Minister, and disturb public tranquility

5. Crimina Petiti on No 8416 of 2025 has also been filed under Section 528 of 8NSS,2023, seeking quashment of proceedings in FIR No 146 of 2025 registered at police Station, GDK-l Town, Ramagundam, against the petitioner (arrayed as Accused No.2). On 18 032025, Respondent No 2 lodged a complaint alleging that, on 04.03.2025 and 11 032025, white browsing the social media platform ,,X,, (formerly Twitter), he encountered allegedly vulgar and abusive messages posted by two individuals including the petitioner targeting the Hon,ble Chief Arlinister of Telangana The case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 352 and 356(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned tweets constitute an exercise of the petitioner,s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. made on social media purely as expressions of political opinion, without any intent to incite violence or disturb public peace. 4 NTR,] CRL Ps 4905, 4901 & 8416-2025 Consequently, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'the BNS') are absent' It is further argued that there is no element of false evidence involved, and thus, Section 192 of the BNS' pertaining to the offence of giving or fabricattng false evidence has no application, as neither the offence of rioting nor false evidence is even alleged in the complaint The attrrbution of these provisions to the petitioner is, therefore, without basis With respect to Section 356 of BNS (defamation)' counsel submits that the provision mandates that the complaint must be made by the 'aggrieved person' and not by any unrelated third party. Similarly, Section 67 of the lnformalrctt Technology Act' 20OB ('the lT Act'), which penalises the publication or transmission of obscene material' is inapplicable' as even accepting the impugned statements at face value' they amount' at best, to political criticism and not obscenity' Furthermore, the allegation is limited to the petitioner having posted the tweet in question on social media ln the absence of any averment suggesting the involvement of other individuals, the provisions relating to crimtnal conspiracy under 5 N]R ] CRIPs ,1905, 4903 & 8416 2025 Section 61 (2) of BNS or common intention under Section 3(5) of BNS cannot be invoked. Counsel emphasizes that all the complaints are devoid of specific particulars regarding the allegedly obscene content, the precise dates of posting, or any aclual tmpact on public order. The police reports were filed belatedly, renderrng the proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable. On these grounds, it rs prayed that the records be called for and the crrminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 7 ln response, the learned public prosecutor submits that, despite the issuance of multiple notices under Sectron 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner willfully failed to appear and produce the requistte electronic devices and documents, thereby demonstrating deliberate non_compliance It is further contended that the petitioner rs implicated in multrple criminal cases across the State of Telangana, indicative of a continuing pattern of similar conduct. The prosecution asserts that the tweet in question was intentionally posted with the objective of defaming and provoking unrest against a democratically elected government. Thls, it is argued, squarely 6 NTR,] CRLPS 4905, 490J & 8416-2025 attracts the provisions of Section 67 of the lT Act' which is independently punishable irrespective of any claim of defamation With particular reference to FIR No 146 of 2025' it is alleged that the petitioner/accused ' along with another individual' is associated with the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) party and' on04.03.2025and11,03.2025'posteddefamatoryandabusive content on the social media platform 'X" (formerlY Twitter) targetlng the Hon'ble Chief N/inister of Telangana These Posts, outrage and according to the Prosecution' provoked Public caused social unrest' The Prosecution further submits that the investrgation is at a nascent stage and the witness statements have been recorded' and relevant digital evidence has been collected ln light of the pendency of the investigation' it is prayed that the present petitions be dismissed B. lhave carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record'

9. The social media posts attributed to the petitioner' which contain the alleged statements, are prima facie evident from the record At the outset, it is a settled proposition of law that content posted on social media platforms may, in appropriate / CRt ps 4905, r90l & B.l r6 N2B,rl circumstances, amount to criminal offences such as defamation, hate speech, incitement to vrolence, public mischief, and other cognizable wrongs. In such cases, prosecution is maintainabre under the relevant provrsions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 @NS). the lndian penat Code, 1860 (tpC) (where applicable) and the lnformatiort Technotogy Acl, 2000 (lT Act). 10 However, to proceed with prosecution on such imputations, the investigating agency must prima facie find admissible material both the requistte intent (mens rea) and the actual or probable harmful effect (aclus reus) of the alleged act. Mere publication of offensive or critical content, without making oul a case of an intention to cause the prohibited consequences, is rnsufficient to proceed with the crimrnal proceedrngs. Authentication of the content, proper collection of evidence and positive rdentification of the person responsible for the posting are essential prerequlsites Courts, in this regard, are duty-bound to adopt a balanced approach safeguarding the constitutionar guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article .,l9(.1 )(a) while ensuring that such freedom does not extend to speech that causes tangible harm, such as misinformation, targeted harassment, or incitement 8 NTR,] cRi,Ps 4905, 4903 & 8416 2025 to disorder. Preserving this balance is critical to both democratic discourse and maintenance of public order.

11. ln the present case, the allegations broadly encompass charges of provocation to commit riotrng ' fabrication of false evidence,rntentionalinsultwithintenttoprovokebreachofpeace, circulationofstatementsconducingtopublicmischief,and defamation. The maintainability of prosecution for these offences necessarily depends upon the specific factual context in whrch the impugned acts occurred '

12. Acts that amount to intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace, online mischief calculated to promote enmity or violence, and defamatory imputations' if duly established would justify continuation of prosecution Conversely' where the statutory ingredients of the offence are absent' mere political criticism, however harsh, cannot attract criminal sanction 13 The police report in FIR No' B of 2025 alleges that the petitioner's tweet was defamatory, provocative, and politically motivated. In FIR No. 13 of 2025, the complaint alleges that the statements were false, politically motivated, and devoid of legal merit. FIR No. 146 of 2025 alleges that the petitioner's remarks 9 cRlps ,t90s, 4eol & 8416 YJ'; sought to damage the reputation of the Hon,ble thereby disturbing social peace and creating conflict between rival political groups. Chief tVinister, a likelihood of 14 The rerevant statutory provisions are summarised berow a Section 192 BNS - wanton provocation with intent to cause riot Attracts Iiability where a person, with ill intent, provokes others with knowledge or intentron that such provocation may cause rioting. Mere offensive language without such intent rs insu fficrent b. Section 19j BNS _ Rioting: Requires an unlawtul assembly of five or more persons using force or violence towards a common illegal object A soclal media post alone does not complete this offence unless it rncites and results in unlaMul assembly and violence. c. Section 352 BNS - lntentional insult to provoke breach ot peace. Necessrtates proof of grave and sudden provocation, typically involving direct and abusive remarks calculated to incite retaliation 10 NIR,] CRLPs 1905, 4903 & 8416 2025 d. Section 353 BNS - Statements conducing to public mischief: Penalises circulation of false or incendiary statements designed to cause public alarm' enmity' or hatred' e Section 356(2) BNS - Defamation Applies to publication of false imputations intended or known to cause harm to reputation' Essential elements include falsity' intent' knowledge of probable harm, and resulting reputational injury' f.Section6l(2)BNS_Criminalconspiracy.Requiresproofof agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence' g. Section 3(5) BNS - Common intention' Extends liability to acts done jointly in furtherance of a common unlawful obiect h Section 67 lT Act - Obscene material in electronic form Limited to sexually explicit or lascivious content capable of corrupting or dePraving vlewers'

15. ln light of the above provisions, the allegations against the petitioner must be scrutinised to determine whether they establish a prima facie case. 11 CRLps 1s05, 49Ol & 84l6 )B;

16. The substratum of the complaints is that the petitioner (i) engaged in political criticism of the rulng party and government and (ii) used allegedly vulgar or abusive Hon'ble Chief lVlinister remarks against the 17 Upon review of the impugned social medra posts, the legal position is as follows. The first post, which describes the Congress party as a "scourge" and likens it to a ,,pest,,, is harsh and metaphorical but constitutes poriticar critrcrsm rt does not attract section 1g2 0f the BNS on promotion of enmity, since it targets a political party and not a protected group. Nor does it fall within Section 352 BNS on intentional insult or Section 353(1 Xb) BNS on public mrschief, as there is no rmmrnent threat of public disorder At most, it could amount to defamation under Section 356 read with Section 61(2) BNS; however, statutory exceptions such as truth for public good and fair comment provrde strong defences

18. The second post, which alleges ,,2Oyo commission,, in the rule of the Chief IVinrster and the ruling Congress party in Telangana, is closer to the domain of defamation as it names both the Chief Minister and the party A government cannot suq._ for defamation, as held in R Rajagopal v State of Tamit Nadu t2 N]R,] CRLPS 4905' 4903 & 8416 2025 (1994), but individual ministers and political partles as associations may do so Even here' statutory defences of truth and fair comment in the public interest remain available Sections 1g2,352'and 353(.1 )(b) BNS are inapplicable' as the criticrsm is political, not communal or provocative'

19. The third post' involving vulgar and abusive remarks against the Chief tr/linister' may at best be construed as defamation. Sectron 67 of the lnformation Technology Act' 2008' which penalizes obscene material in electronic form ' is not applicable, as the remarks' though abusive' are not obscene 20 Constitutionally, all three posts fall within the protection of Article 19(1 )(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.RestrictionsunderArticlelg(2)applyonlyinnarrow circumstances such as defamation' incitement to violence' or imminent threat to public order' The Supreme Court tn lVlaneka Gandhiv.t.)nionoflndia(1978),Rangarajanv'P-JagjivanRam (198g), and Subramanian Swamy v. lJnion of lndia (2016) has consistently affirmed the high level of protection granted to political expression in a democracy' 13 CRLps 1e0s, 4903 & 8416lrd; 21 . As for procedure, under the BNSS, criminal defamation is punishabre by rp to two years, imprisonment, a fine, or both. Cognizance can only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrreved person, or in lrmited cases by a public prosecutor with prior sanctron The complaint is filed before a lVlagrstrate of the First Class, who records statements and issues summons if a prima facie case exists The trial then proceeds as a summons case where the accused may rely on the ten statutory f at com ment, a nd privileg ed exceptions, including truth, com m un ica tion 22 ln concrusion, the impugned posts do not attract the applicatron of Sections 192,352, or 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, nor Section 67 of the lnformation Technology Act, 2008 At best they may fail within the rimited ambit of defamation under Section 356 read with Section 61 (2) BNS. Even in that context, however, the availability of statutory exceptions, such as truth for the public good and fair comment, as well as the robust constitutional safeguards for political expression, provide a strong shield to the petitroner. Consequently, any attempt to prosecute the petitioneT under provisions other than defamation would be lega*y unsustainabre. t4 NIR/] CRLPS 4905, 4901 & 84i6 2025 N/lore importantly, the present criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of police reports filed by third parties' and not through a complaint by the aggrieved person ' as mandatorily required under the BNSS framework for prosecuting defamation' ln the absence of locus standi of the complainant' the continuation of these proceedings would be not only improper but also untenable in law'

23. Article 19('1 )(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, sublect to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which permits limitations only in the interests of sovereignty, integrity' security of State' friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency' morality' contempt of court' defamation, and incitement to offence' 24 The penal provislons alleged require specific prima facie materialdefamationrequiresfalseimputationsharming reputation; insult requires grave and sudden provocation; public mischief requires circulation of false or inflammatory material; and Section 67 lT Act applies only to obscene sexual content' Notably, criminal defamatton is a non-cognizable offence under CrPC, investigation of which requires a magistrate's order under Section 1 55. 15 NTR ] cPlp\ 4105, 4901 I 6416 2025

25. The Hon,ble Supreme Court has consistenily clarifjed the Iimits of cnminal liability for speech t Shreya Sirrghat v [Jnrcn of tndia (2015) 5 SCC t held that mere annoyance or offensive remarks are not criminal; only incrtement to violence or disorder justifies restriction. tr Kedar Nalh Sinqh v State of Bthar (1962) SCR Supl (2) 769 upheld the constitutionality of sedition law but limited its application to speech inciting violence or disorder tu Subramantan Swanty v lJn@n of lrtcjra (2016) 7 SCC 221 upheld crimlnal defamation but stressed the requrrement of false factual imputations and actual reputatlonal injury, distinguishing it from political criticism. iv Lalita Kumari v Govt of U p. (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandated FIR reqistration only for cognizable offences; for non cognizable offences such as defamation, prelrminary enquiry or judicial sanction is requrred v Arnesh Kumar y Slale of Bihar (2014) I SCC 273 cautioned against mechanical arrests and stressed proportronality in criminal process.

26. Applying these principles, the impugned tweets, such as "Congress is the scourge.. ,,and,,No Vision, No tt/ission. ,,, 16 NTR,] CRI Ps 4905,490J & 8416 2025 plainly political criticism and satire' which do not amount to defamation or public mischief and are fully protected by Article 19(1 )(a) The third tweet though allegedly vulgar or abusive towards the Chref li/linister, cannot be equated with defamation absent false factual imputations since defamation is non-cognizable, the registration of FlRs without compliance with Section 17 4 BNSS and without a tVlagistrate's order is procedurally unsustainable None of the tweets contain obscenity under Section 67 lT Act, nor do they disclose elements of public mischief (Section 353 BNS) or provocation to riot (Sections 1g1t1g2BNS). Addrtionally' the mechanical registration of FlRs in this case, without preliminary enquiry' is in violation of the binding drcta in Lalita Kumari (suPra) 27-Whenthefactualmatrixofthepresentcaseisexaminedin light of the seven illustrative categories laid down in Slafe of Haryana v Bhaian Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335' it is evident that the proceedings squarely fall wrthin multiple categories warranting quashment First, under Categories (1) and (2), the allegations in the FlRs, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, save for a tenuous allegation of defamation Secondly' 17 NrR,] cPr Ps 490\ ltol a s,lro :ozs under Category (3), the uncontroverted allegations on record fail to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences invoked, such as provocation to riot, intentional insult, or public mrschief. Finally, under Category (5), there exists a clear legal bar to prosecution, inasmuch as the law mandates that criminal defamation proceedings can only be initiated by way of a private complaint by the aggrieved person. ln the present case, the FIRs have been registered on the basis of police reports or third party complaints, whlch render them procedurally incompetent and legally unsustainable

28. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view thal the rmpugned tweets, though critical, fall squarely within the ambit of regrtimate poriticar expression rn the absence of statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, the registration of FlRs without requisite enquiry or judicial approvat is unsustainable in law, and continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are liable to be allowed 29 Before parting with this 1udgment. this Courl considers it necessary to make certain observations. Having regard to the factual and legal position discussed herein, and with a view to 1B NTR,] CRL Ps 4905, 4903 & 84t6 2025 safeguarding fundamental rights as well as Preventing the invoked mechanically or arbitrarily' it criminal Process from being is apProPriate to Prescribe a set of oPerational guidelines for tVlagistrates when dealing with police authorities and Judicial proceedings initiated on the basis of social media posts These dlrections are particularly relevant in cases where the registration ofFirstlnformationReports(FlRs)issoughtinconnectionwith such posts. Accordingly' the police authorities are directed to adhere to the following guidelines' i Verification of locus standi: Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences' the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the "person aggrieved" in termsoflaw.Complaintsbyunrelatedthirdpartieslacking standing are not maintainable' except where the report concerns a cognizable offence' ii Preliminary inquirY in cognizable offences: Where a discloses a cognizable offence' the representation/comPlaint police shall, prior to registration of crime' conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out 19 CRI Ps .90s, 49Ol & Br L61]#; CASE alleging promotion of enmity, intentional iii High threshold for media post/speech_related offences.- No rnsu lt, pu blic mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists pnma facre malenal drsclosing incitement to violence hatred, or public disorder Thrs threshold musl be appiled in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Srngh v Slale of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Sinqhat v Union of tndia (2015) 5 SCC 1 Protection of political speech/post: The pollce shall not mechanrcafly register cases concerning harsh. offensive, critical political speech Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may crrminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticisrn under Articre 1g(1)(a) of the constitution must be scrupulously enforced V Defamation as a non-coglnizabte offence: Since defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the lurisdictional [4agistrate Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the lVlagistrate under Section 174(Z) ot the BNSS 70 NTR,J CRI Ps 4905, 4S0l & 8416 2025 vi Comptiance with arrest guidelines: In all ca.ses' the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. Slate of Bihar, (2014) B SCC 2T3 Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermrssible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed' vii. Prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases; ln matters involving political speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression' the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor before registering an FlR, to ensure that the proposed action is legallY sustainable' viiiFrivotousormotivatedcomplaints:Whereacomplaintis found to be frivolous, vexatious' or politically motivated' the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS' citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation'

30. ln light of the above directions' Crimtnal Petition Nos' 4905, 4903, and 8416 of 2025 are allowed Consequently' the proceedings against the petitioner in (i) FIR No 08 of 2025 registered at Poilce Station, CCPS Ramagundam' Telangana Cyber Security Bureau (TSCSB), (ii) FIR No '1 3 of 2025 registered at Police Station, CCPS Karimnagar' TSCSB; and (iii) 21 NIR I LRLPs lr 05, tr0l& Biit, zO2i FIR No 146 of 2025 registered at police Station, GDK_l Iown, Ramagundam, are hereby quashed SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL GISTRAR OFFICER //TRUE COPYII I I One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble SRI Justice N. TUKA ' (Fair His Lordship rina eeiusaii' To rir"i iiri" at Godavarikhani. 'l The Judicial tr,4agistrate First Class, peddaoalli z. t ne I Additional Judicial Magistrate at Karimnagar. 3 The rAdditionar Judiciar Maiistrate a ]fe DGe "i _Tetangana State Fotice, Lrf.OiX.pJirO, opposite Ravindra _ Bharathi Red Hiils, Lakdikaput, r_fya"rrnrJli"irngrn, 500004 5 The Station House Officer, CC'Sh;;;;;;i""r, rscsslrG) Cyber Secur*y potice Station, p"OJrpjili rjiriri"t. ^ f,rrelytrCCSB) o. I ne statron House Officer, CCpS Karimnagar, TSCSB(TG) Cyber Securitv _ Bureau(TGCSB) potice Station, Karrmn"oriifji.tri"t 7. The Station House officer, cDK I i;w;E;i"Jitrion, Ramagundam B. 1'1 LR Copies. t #:,r::i,ilT:retary' union or lndia Ministry or Law, Justice and companv 10 The se-cIetary, Terangana Advocates Association Library, High court for the . . State of Telangana, High Court Buitdings ai HvJeraO"a 11.Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, Hiirr cor'rt ro,. the State of rerangana ar '12 3 CCs to SRt. T V RAMANA RAO Advocate tOpUCl 13.Two CD Copies. Hyderabad. [OUT] PM/GR \.y HIGH COURT DATED:10 tOgt2O2S COMMON ORDER 6ii S liii o L) r 4 0i't 2u5 * SPATC .P Z a) i\ * CRLP.Nos.4905, 4903 & 8416 ot zOZs ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS .y\ ,lffd )*A^5 la"