Bail denied to a software engineer as being educated man, he’s not justified in making irresponsible comments against the judiciary: Andhra Pradesh High Court
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATHI MANAVENDRANATH ROY in the case of Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 954 OF 2022) where the judge dismissed the criminal petition and granted bail to the accused advocates and denied bail to accused software engineer.
Facts:
The petitioners in the instant case is Gopal Krishna Kalanidhi and the respondent in the instant case is State of Andhra Pradesh. The facts of the case are such that several persons have posted comments in the social media like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc., making certain wild and reckless allegations against the High Court and Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the Supreme Court with certain aspersions relating to the Judgments delivered by the Judges of the High Court and thereby that they indulged in the acts of bringing down the image of the judiciary and the High Court in the estimation of the members of the society, about 12 crimes were registered by the C.I.D., Amaravati. A case under Sections 153A, 504, 505(2), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was registered against the Petitioners. These three criminal petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Judgement:
The court observed that both A-18 and A- 19 who are advocates by profession have in writing tendered unconditional apology to the High Court and requested to drop the proceedings against them. The Court has accepted the said apology and closed the contempt proceedings. Additionally, as the major part of investigation relating to the role played by A-18 and A-19 is concerned, has been completed, thus, A-18 and A-19 are entitled to bail.
The Court further observed that as regards the petitioner/A-20 is concerned, he tendering unconditional apology in the contempt proceedings is pending for consideration. The High Court did not accept the same and did not close the contempt proceedings against him. Therefore, he is not similarly placed with A-18 and A-19. Further, the comment that was posted by him in the social media is of serious nature which got effect of bringing down the image of judiciary and the High Court and Judges in the estimation of the members of the society. He, being an educated man and Software Engineer is not justified in making such irresponsible comments against the Judiciary and the High Court. Therefore, as his request to accept his apology is still pending before the High Court and as investigation in this case is pending against him, this Court is not inclined to enlarge A-20 on bail at this stage.
Judgement reviewed by – Arvind Roshan