Kriti Agrawal –
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a suspended Judicial Officer who had expressed his displeasure with the way the government was run and had been charged under Sections 124-A, 153, and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice R. Raghunandan Rao’s Bench granted him bail, observing that the petitioner is a suspended Judicial Officer and that he is unlikely to escape.
The petitioner was accused of making intemperate words against the government and also against the Chief Minister during a television debate when he allegedly claimed that he is looking forward to cutting off the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s head.
A complaint was filed based on these statements, alleging that his statements would cause hostility between different sections of society and would also amount to a call for the violent overthrow of the government, constituting an offence under Section 124-A of the IPC.
A case was filed based on these charges, and he was arrested and held in judicial custody. He had been in judicial custody since then, and his application for bail had been denied by the Trial Judge in May 2021.
The petitioner’s Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner’s objective was not to call for a violent overthrow of the government, but rather to express his dissatisfaction with the way the government was being conducted.
The Public Prosecutor objected to the petitioner being granted bail, claiming that he is a Judicial Officer who is under suspension and is fully aware of the repercussions of his words, as well as their effect and influence.
It was also argued that Rule 15 to 17 of the A.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules expressly state that no serving officer of the government can speak about any aspect of the government’s operation or make any comments about higher officers unless the State Government gives permission.
While granting him bail, the Court noted that the crime is based on a statement made during a television debate that was recorded and cannot be changed or tampered with, and that a period of 60 days has already passed, so any further tampering with or affecting the investigation would not be an issue.