AP High Court Closes Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Court Employee Accused Of Defaming District Judiciary Through Anonymous Petitions
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has closed an anticipatory bail petition moved by a judicial department employee accused of circulating anonymous and defamatory petition against district judiciary after the State submitted that the custodial interrogation was not required. The State submitted that notice has been issued to de-facto complainant, the investigation is still in progress and since...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has closed an anticipatory bail petition moved by a judicial department employee accused of circulating anonymous and defamatory petition against district judiciary after the State submitted that the custodial interrogation was not required.
The State submitted that notice has been issued to de-facto complainant, the investigation is still in progress and since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment below 7 years, the police would follow the procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS "as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present matter".
Section 35(3) BNSS mandates that in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, where custodial interrogation is not required, the police shall ordinarily issue a prior notice to the accused before effecting arrest, thereby ensuring that arrest is not made as a routine measure and is resorted to only when necessary.
The FIR was registered for offences punishable under various provisions, including causing disappearance of evidence by public servant (Section 238), fabricating false evidence or documents (Section 201), criminal intimidation (Sections 351(3) and 351(4)), acts endangering human life or personal safety (Section 336(3)), aggravated wrongful confinement (Section 340(2)), and allied liability for joint or conspiratorial participation (Section 61(2)).
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, in his order said:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar which is reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another, recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petition may be disposed of.
Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record before this Court, the Criminal Petition is disposed of".
The prosecution alleged that on March 21, an anonymous or pseudonymous petition containing serious and allegedly defamatory allegations against the District Judiciary, including the Principal District Judge and other judicial officers and staff, was circulated to various authorities.
During the enquiry, it was found that the petition had been sent through Registered Post from the Railway Post Office at Tirupati. The prosecution alleged that CCTV footage showed the involvement of the petitioner along with another unidentified person travelling on a two-wheeler, and that the accused had fraudulently created and circulated the petitions as though they were genuine with an intention to defame judicial officers.
Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner contended that he was an employee in the Judicial Department with a clear service record and that the case had been registered solely on the basis of CCTV footage.
It was further argued that the allegations in the anonymous petitions related only to administrative issues, including transfers and alleged corruption, and that no ingredients of the offence under Section 79 BNS were made out. The petitioner also submitted that all offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment below seven years and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The plea was disposed of.
Case Title: P S Ganesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3029/2026
Counsel for Petitioner: Shaik Mohammed Ismail
Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor