Guda Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Cr. P. 7296/2021
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 Andhra Pradesh High Court lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner posted comments against the High Court Judges. These acts scandalised and lowered their image.
• A High Court order directed the filing of an FIR under Sections 153(2) and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Central Bureau of Investigation later took over the case for investigation.
• The CID police issued notices calling the petitioner to appear in this case, and the petitioner did so.
• The police seized the Samsung phone of the petitioner. They retrieved the posts from 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 dismissed the bail application earlier on merits. However, during the petition’s pendency, the respondents have filed a charge sheet. 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 also argued that the earlier petition was dismissed for incomplete investigation. But 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 previous bail applications filed were considered on merits and dismissed 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. Further, if the court releases the petitioner on bail, he will continue to post under other names.

Opinion of the Bench

• Based on 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).
• However, the investigation is complete, and the rule of the criminal justice system is bail, not jail.

Final Decision

• The bench accepted the bail application 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.