The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail on humanitarian grounds to a woman accused of posting content in social media against judges, especially in view of her miscarriage.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed this order while hearing a Criminal Petition filed by the woman accused of posting content in social media against judges.
The Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail, by the petitioner / accused in Crime of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 504, 505(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1908 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
The facts of the case are that on the complaint lodged by the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on the allegation that the key personnel, who are occupying prominent posts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, intentionally targeting the judges gave interviews, gave speeches attributing motives of caste and corrupt allegations on some of the Supreme Court Judges and High Court in delivering orders/ judgments and they posted abusive, life threatening and intimidating posting against the Judges in social media i.e Facebook and Twitter over recent judgments/orders delivered by the judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Hence, the present crime was registered.
The counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that after issuance of Section 41-A CrPC notice, dated 12.09.2022 and on the same day, without following the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar , the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the vague ground that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation.
It is also contended that none of the allegations in the FIR attract the provisions of Sections 153-A, 504, 505(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as mens rea is absent in the allegations.
Further, it is contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner warranting arrest, as the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and further she is willing to cooperate.
It is also submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Some of the accused in similar crimes were already enlarged on bail.
The counsel for the petitioner said that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 12.09.2022 and he filed a memo duly enclosing the medical reports of the petitioner, where it discloses that the petitioner has a gynaecological problem and she suffered a miscarriage and her mental health is also affected and drew the attention of the Court to the said reports and sought to consider enlarging the petitioner on regular bail.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI opposed the Criminal Petitions on the ground that the petitioner has deliberately made wild and reckless comments and allegations both against the High Court and also the sitting judges of the High Court.
Therefore, he submitted that she is not entitled to bail, however, the Court may consider bail on humanitarian grounds and also on the petitioner’s medical condition.
On perusal of the material on record, the Court observed that it is evident the petitioner has participated and made posts against the institution, but still allowed the bail application.
However, the Court considered the submissions of the both counsel and further the medical record reveals that the petitioner’s pregnancy got miscarriage and also by taking the petitioner’s mental agony and also on humanitarian grounds and health condition of the petitioner, the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:‐
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing self bond for Rs 25,000 (Rs 25,000 only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada;
(ii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called for the purpose of investigation; and
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner should not indulge the activities as alleged and in view of any violation would be noticed, prosecution is at liberty to move an application against the petitioner;
Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.