Dasari Ramuluswamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3725 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3725 AP
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dasari Ramuluswamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 September, 2021

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4475 of 2021

ORDER:-

          This petition is filed under Sections 438 of Code of the

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking pre-arrest

arrest bail to the petitioner/A-2        in the event of his arrest in

connection with Crime No.225 of 2021 of D.Hirehal Police Station,

Anantapuram District for the offences punishable under Sections

153(A) and 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

'IPC').

2.        The case of prosecution is that a report was lodged by de facto

complainant who is YSRCP activist wherein it was stated that at

about 15 days back one of the TDP activist Sidda Reddy talked with

operator Ramaswamy through phone with regard to supply of power

to the agricultural fields and in the said conversation both of them

discussed      about   leaders Kapu Ramachandra Reddy, MLA of

Rayadurgam in filthy language and they discussed about personal

life of his leader and that the said Ramaswamy supported said Sidda

Reddy. The conversation between them has heard by public through

social media, as such, they suffered a lot in the community and

therefore, he complained against the petitioner along with another

accused. Petitioner is arrayed as A-2.


3.        Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that purely basing on

political rivalry, petitioner is implicated in this case. Petitioner is a

Government employee, he has nothing to do with the alleged

offences. He submits that basing on the letter addressed by SI of

Police, petitioner was suspended from his service. He further submits

that even if all the allegations in the complaint do not attract the

offence under Section 153A of IPC.

Section 153A: Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of promoting disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

5. He relied on order dated 26.08.2020 passed in W.P.8890 of

2020 by this Court wherein it was held that:

"In view of the law declared by the Courts (referred above) the allegations made in the complaint must necessarily disclose such publication, statement or circulation of such statement or circulation of such statement containing rumour or alarming news among the public based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. But, in the absence of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, the very registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of I.P.C. is illegal.

On close examination of contents of the complaint dated 29.04.2020 lodged by respondent No.4 with respondent NO.3, I find no such two groups and such statement creates or likely to create any ill-will or hatred between two groups or classes on the basis of race, religion, etc., but the allegation

in the complaint is that the postings in Youtube is only to insult the government and the present Chief Minister. The Government and the Chief Minister cannot constitute as one group or two groups since the Government is manned by Chief Minister being a people representative. In the absence of any other group, creation of such enmity, ill-will etc. on the basis of religion etc., does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 505(2) of I.P.C.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court including the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and persuaded by the judgments of other High Courts, I have no hesitation to hold that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC, prima facie, but respondent No.3 being the instrumentality of the State working under the thumb of the State, for the reasons best known to him by abuse of process of law, registered crime against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of I.P.C."

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the

case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner

has abused a woman in audio, as such, Section 509 of IPC has

application to the facts of the case and further as the investigation is

pending, petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

6. Taking into consideration the order dated 26.08.2020 in

W.P.8890 of 2020 passed by this Court, this Court deems it

appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/

A-2 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with Crime No.225 of 2021 of D.Hirehal Police Station, Anantapuram