Andhra Pradesh HC Disposes Anticipatory Bail Plea of Court Employee Accused of Circulating Defamatory Petition Against District Judiciary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a pre-arrest bail petition filed by a judicial department employee accused of anonymously circulating defamatory allegations against Chittoor district judges, relying on the State's assurance that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
On 7 May 2026, Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail filed by P S Ganesh Kumar, a Senior Assistant working on deputation at the Principal District Court, Chittoor. The petition arose from FIR No. 45 of 2026 registered at Chittoor I Town Urban Police Station, which alleged that the petitioner had created and circulated an anonymous, defamatory petition targeting the District Judiciary. The court's disposal was shaped in large part by the Assistant Public Prosecutor's concession that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required, given that all alleged offences carry sentences below seven years.
The Allegations in FIR No. 45 of 2026
According to the prosecution's case, on 21 March 2026 an anonymous petition containing serious and defamatory allegations against the District Judiciary, the Principal District Judge, and other judicial officers and staff members was circulated to various authorities. Investigation revealed that the petition had been sent through Registered Post from the Railway Post Office, Tirupathi.
CCTV footage examination allegedly placed the petitioner, along with an unidentified person, travelling on a two-wheeler bearing registration number AP03 BY 0049 in connection with the dispatch. The prosecution's case is that the petitioner, intending to defame judicial officers, fraudulently created and circulated the anonymous petitions as though they were genuine communications.
The FIR registered offences under Sections 79, 201, 238, 351(3), 351(4), 336(3), and 340(2) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Petitioner's Contentions
Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, appearing for the petitioner, advanced several arguments in support of pre-arrest bail.
He submitted that the petitioner is a government employee in the Judicial Department with a clear service record. The case, he argued, rests solely on CCTV footage and requires detailed investigation before any arrest can be justified.
On the specific charge under Section 79 of the BNS, counsel contended that no ingredients of that offence are made out from the contents of the anonymous letter. The letter, he submitted, concerns administrative matters in the district, including transfers and alleged corruption, and does not attract Section 79.
Counsel also pointed out that every offence alleged against the petitioner carries a maximum sentence below seven years. The petitioner expressed readiness to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court.
State's Position and the Procedural Concession
Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, confirmed that notice had been served on the de facto complainant. She submitted that the investigation remains in progress.
Critically, the APP stated that since all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, the police would follow the procedure under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She confirmed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage.
Section 35(3) of the BNSS governs the conditions under which a police officer may arrest a person accused of an offence carrying a sentence of less than seven years, requiring the officer to record reasons and satisfy certain conditions before effecting an arrest.
Role of Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil
Petitioner's counsel drew the court's attention to the Supreme Court's judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and its reiteration in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, 2026 INSC 115. Both decisions address the conditions under which arrests may be made in cases involving offences punishable with sentences below seven years, and caution against mechanical arrests without application of mind.
Counsel submitted that in light of the APP's own concession that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, the petition could be disposed of on the basis of those submissions, without the court needing to formally grant anticipatory bail in the conventional sense.
The court accepted this approach. By recording the State's position that Section 35(3) of the BNSS would be followed and that custodial interrogation is not required, the petition was rendered infructuous for practical purposes, and the court disposed of it accordingly.
Outcome
Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa disposed of Criminal Petition No. 3029 of 2026 on 7 May 2026, after considering the submissions and the material on record. No formal order granting or refusing anticipatory bail was passed; the petition was disposed of by recording the State's concession on the inapplicability of custodial interrogation and the applicability of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Any miscellaneous applications pending in the matter were directed to stand closed as a consequence.