Jalagam Venkata Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Cr. P. 7293/2021
Before Justice D. Ramesh
Decided on January 6, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving the posting of scandalising comments against the sitting High Court judges

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 153A, 504, 505(2), 506)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 437, 439)
  

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The former Registrar General of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh lodged a complaint stating defamation of High Court judges on social media. 
• A High Court order directed the filing of an FIR under Sections 505(2) and 153(2). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later took over the case for investigation. 
• The CID issued a notice calling the petitioner to appear before the court. The police seized a Samsung phone from the petitioner. They retrieved posts on Facebook. Subsequently, the police arrested the petitioner, and the petitioner filed the bail application.
  

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that this court had dismissed the bail application earlier on merits. However, the respondents filed a charge sheet during the petition’s pendency. But this was not brought to the notice of this court. The fact came to the petitioner’s notice only after disposal of the first bail application. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.
• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the court dismissed the bail application as the investigation was incomplete. But as of today, the police have completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet. So, there is no need for the petitioner to be in jail as it has already been sixty days. 
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the court had considered previous bail applications filed on merits and dismissed them with an elaborate order. Without assailing the orders in appellate form, the petitioner cannot file a second bail application within 15 days, and there has been no change in circumstances.

Opinion of the Bench

• In Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, it is clear that filing a charge sheet does not lead to altered circumstances. Also, the petitioner is not entitled to default bail as the present applications are not filed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Moreover, the court mentioned that the rule of the criminal justice system is bail, not jail. In the same FIR, the court had granted bail to other accused persons.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner with conditions.

Marc Pereira, an undergraduate student at Rizvi Law College, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.