Andhra Pradesh High Court: Material Benefit Not Forthcoming No Prior Chargesheets | Police Directed To Follow Section 35(3) BNSS In Political Social Media Abuse Cases
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay issued a common order on multiple criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitions sought anticipatory bail in relation to various criminal cases involving allegedly derogatory and abusive social media posts. The court, after detailed examination of statutory provisions and submissions from both sides, concluded that the requirements under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were not satisfied. Consequently, the court directed concerned police officials to scrupulously follow the procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS (formerly Section 41-A CrPC), in line with the Supreme Court’s judgement in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
A series of anticipatory bail petitions were filed by Sajjala Bhargav Reddy and Malli Sowjanya in Criminal Petitions Nos. 8059, 8114, 8320, 8545, 8550, and 8854 of 2024. These petitions pertained to multiple FIRs filed across different districts in Andhra Pradesh for allegedly facilitating derogatory social media content targeting political figures.
The allegations across these cases were similar: social media account holders had posted abusive and derogatory content allegedly at the behest of the petitioner, who was claimed to be in charge of the social media operations of the YSRCP political party. The petitioner was implicated based on the confessions of the co-accused.
According to police reports and submissions from the Public Prosecutor, these derogatory posts targeted political leaders holding constitutional positions. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the posts were part of an organized effort facilitated by the petitioner for financial gain, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 111 of the BNS, which pertains to organized crime.
The petitioner, through senior counsel Ponnavolu Sudhkar Reddy appearing for R. Yella Reddy, argued that Section 111 was inapplicable. He contended that the said provision requires the existence of two prior chargesheets within ten years concerning offenses under Section 111. The absence of such chargesheets, the counsel submitted, invalidated the applicability of the provision.
It was also argued that the confessions of the co-accused, obtained in police custody, have low evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for implicating the petitioner. Furthermore, some of the alleged acts predated the BNS, rendering the retrospective application of Section 111 impermissible.
The Public Prosecutor contended that multiple social media posts had been made in furtherance of a political agenda and constituted a well-coordinated campaign, hence fulfilling the definition of organized crime. The State further submitted that even complaints could suffice to meet the threshold of Section 111, and that the evidentiary value of co-accused confessions was a matter for trial.
The court provided a detailed interpretation of Section 111 of the BNS. "The primary requirement to attract 'organised crime' is that the unlawful activity should be for material benefit for the accused including financial benefit..."
It examined the term "material benefit" in light of international conventions and state legislations such as the A.P. Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The court noted: "In the absence of any specific explanation as to what constitutes material benefit, it would be appropriate to rely on common understanding... not a perceptual benefit."
On the evidentiary requirements, the court held: "Explanation (ii) to Section 111 of the BNS... mandates more than one chargesheet against the accused in the previous ten years... Nothing has been pointed out as to the pendency of any chargesheet against the Petitioner..."
The court found that the cases did not meet the statutory threshold for invoking Section 111, noting: "In the absence of any chargesheet... registration of crime under Section 111 of the BNS at this stage appears to be not in consonance with the requirement of law."
The court also distinguished the case law cited by the Public Prosecutor, stating: "Reliance on Jitesh Jha v. State of U.P... appears to be misplaced. In that judgement, four chargesheets were registered..."
Further, while acknowledging the harmful effects of derogatory social media posts, the court observed: "In the present day, vulgar, hate filled and abusive posts in social media have become the new age norm... Every citizen has the right to lead a dignified life which is a human right recognised under the Constitution of India."
In conclusion, the court directed: "The Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the Station House Officers concerned to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS... as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar."
Additionally, the court recommended administrative measures: "The State Government may also consider instructing the intermediaries to 'auto block' usage of such words on social media..."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ponnavolu Sudhkar Reddy, Senior Counsel for R. Yella Reddy
For the Respondent: M. Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Sajjala Bhargav Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Numbers: Criminal Petitions Nos. 8059, 8114, 8320, 8545, 8550, and 8854 of 2024
Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay
[Read/Download order]
