Suma Tiyyagura Madda Suma ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7528 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.7710 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439

of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking

regular bail, by the petitioner/accused in Crime

No.RC.6/E/2022-CBI/EO-III/NEW DELHI of Anti

Corruption Bureau Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 504, 505(2)

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1908 ('IPC' in short) and

Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the complaint

lodged by the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, on the allegation that the key personnel, who are

occupying prominent posts in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

intentionally targeting the Hon'ble Judges gave interviews,

gave speeches attributing motives of caste and corrupt

allegations on some of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges and

High Court in delivering orders/judgments and they posted

abusive, life threatening and intimidating posting against the

Judges in social media i.e. Facebook and Twitter over recent

judgments/orders delivered by the Hon'ble Judges of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the present crime was

registered.

3. Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor

General for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to

what has been raised in the grounds, contended that after

issuance of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice, dated 12.09.2022 and

on the same day, without following the guidelines issued in

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, the petitioner was

arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the vague

ground that the petitioner did not cooperate with the

investigation.

It is also contended that none of the allegations in the

FIR attract the provisions of Sections 153-A, 504, 505(2) and

506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000 as mens rea is absent in

the allegations. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment

(2014) 8 SCC 273

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation2 wherein it is held that

"In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

Further, it is contended that prima facie case is not

made out against the petitioner warranting arrest, as the

petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and

further she is willing to cooperate.

It is also submitted that there are no criminal

antecedents against the petitioner. Some of the accused in

similar crimes were already enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is

languishing in jail since 12.09.2022 and he filed a memo duly

enclosing the medical reports of the petitioner, where it

(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40

discloses that the petitioner has a gynic problem and her

pregnancy got miscarriage and her mental health also

affected and draw the attention of this Court to the said

reports and sought to consider enlarging the petitioner on

regular bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

for C.B.I. opposed the Criminal Petitions on the ground that

the petitioner has deliberately made wild and reckless

comments and allegations both against the High Court and

also the sitting Judges of the High Court. Therefore, he would

submit that she is not entitled for bail, however, this Court

may consider bail on humanitarian grounds and also on

medical condition of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the material on record it is evident that

though the petitioner has participated and made posting

against the institution. However, considering the submissions

of the both the counsel and further the medical record reveals

that the petitioner's pregnancy got miscarriage and also by

taking the petitioner's mental agony and also on humanitarian

grounds and health condition of the petitioner, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing

self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)

with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the

learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada;

(ii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer whenever called for the purpose of

investigation; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any

other witnesses under any circumstances and any such

attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the

witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-

operate with the investigation. The petitioner should not

indulge the activities as alleged and in view of any violation

would be noticed, prosecution is at liberty to move an

application against the petitioner;

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with

the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the

above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails

cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall

move appropriate application for such cancellation.

However granting of bail to the petitioner should not be

precedent for others and no principle of parity can be claimed

by the others.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner,

limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating

agency from further investigation as per law and the findings

in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for

the limited purpose of considering the regular bail in the

above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other

proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 30.09.2022 SPP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7710 of 2022

Date : 30.09.2022

SPP