APHC010324972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6675 OF 2025 -ty a?' ol o Between: 1. Polavarapu Rama alias Rama Devi, W/o Late Polavarapu Hah Babu, Aged about 43 years, R/o D No1-33/1, Nowluru, Village, Mangalagiri Mandalam, Guntur. District.(A-l) 2. Polavarapu Ramesh alias Ramesh Babu, S/o Polavarapu Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 39 years, R/o D Nol-33/1, Nowluru Mandalam, Guntur. District Village, Mangalagiri ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED N0.1 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, Machavaram Police Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 2. Bammidi Kusuma Adilaksxmi, W/oYellaji Rao, Age 40 Years 84/2, Gandhi Nagar, Setammadhara, Visakhapatanam city Station, D No.50-2- ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Courtmay be Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 3 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest pleased to enlarge the 7 in connection with FIR No.179/2025 dt. 14-05-2025 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Krishna District during pendency of enquiry and trial This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum pf Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N V MOHANA RAO,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public . Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010324972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6675/2025 Between: 1.POLAVARAPU RAMA ALIAS RAMA DEVI, W/0 LATE POLAVARAPU HAH BABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0 D N01-33/1, NOWLURU, VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDALAM, GUNTUR. DISTRICT.(A-L) 2.POLAVARAPU RAMESH ALIAS RAMESH BABU, S/0 POLAVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/0 D NOL-33/1, NOWLURU, VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDALAM, GUNTUR. DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SHO, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2.BAMMIDI KUSUMA ADILAKSXMI, W/OYELLAJI RAO, AGE 40 YEARS NAGAR, NO.50-2-84/2, VISAKHAPATANAM CITY D GANDHI SETAMMADHARA, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): N V MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6675of2025 Dated 31.07.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 179 of 2025 of Machavaram Poiice Vijayawada City, registered for the aiieged offences Station punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the Indian brevity ‘the IPC’). Penal Code, 1860 (for 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto compiainant alleged that during 2016-2017, her younger brother, who was M.Tech and pursuing recruitment, physical test. During came into contact with petitioners, who claimed to have political secure an SI post for her brother Relying on this on 13.02.2017 in the presence of a cheque was issued by Hari (A4) Subsequently, Rs.3 lakhs was transferred via RTGS preparing for the Sub-Inspector of Police applied for the post and successfully cleared the this period, through a family acquaintance, they Accused No.4 and the influence and assured that they could for a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs. assurance Rs.5 lakhs was paid in cash Dattatreyulu, and as security. on 06.03.2017 to 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6675 of2025 Dated 31.07.2025 Hari’s Axis Bank account. However, when the SI recruitment results were announced in April 2017 and her brother’s name was not on the list, the complainant’s attempts to contact the accused were unsuccessful. She alleges that the accused initially stalled, later offered to settle the matter by registering property in her favour, and eventually issued threats, causing her severe mental distress and fear. Sri. N.V.Mohana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners 3. contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public 4. Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6675 of2025 Dated 31.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 5. Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar\ wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 7. 11. Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that poiice officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: aj.AII the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498- A of the IRC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.j; b)AII police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the ‘(2014) 8 see 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6675 of2025 Dated 31.07.2025 institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction, h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12. 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand^, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnes/? Kumar. 9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6675of2025 ^ Dated 31.07.2025 ^ 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the 10. Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSV41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. SDI- B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The SHO, Machavaram Police Station Krishna District. 2. One CC to SRI. N V MOHANA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies at NSV TAG HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6675 OF 2025 ^ 2 0 AUG 2025 vS 09' o ifrentSectii A. THE CRLP IS DISPOSED OF