Sreenath Suswaram v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Crl. P. 7297/2021
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 alleging posting comments against the High Court Judges. These acts scandalised and lowered their image.
• A High Court order directed filing of an FIR under Sections 505(2) and 153(2) of IPC. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later took over the case for investigation.  
• The CID police issued notices calling the petitioner to appear in connection with the said crime, and the petitioner appeared.
• The police seized a Samsung phone belonging to the petitioner. They were able to retrieve posts on Facebook. Subsequently, the police arrested the petitioner, and the petitioner filed this 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 have filed a charge sheet during the pendency of the said criminal petition. They did not bring this court to the notice of this. Furthermore, the said 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 also argued that the court dismissed the earlier bail application on the grounds of not completing the investigation. 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 since the court had considered previous bail applications filed on merits and dismissed them with an elaborate order. The petitioner cannot file a second bail application within 15 days without assailing the orders in appellate form. Moreover, there has been no change in circumstances. 

Opinion of the Bench

• Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka clearly states that filing a charge sheet does not lead to altered circumstances. They have not filed the present applications under section 167(2) CrPC; hence, the petitioner is not entitled to default bail.
• 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.

Julia Anna Joseph, an undergraduate student at Christ (Deemed to be University), prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.