APHC010333982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6922/2025 Between: 1.KATRU VENKATA SESHU KUMAR, S/O BASAVESWARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 12-104, CHINTALAPETA, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by Public Prosecutor ,High Court of Andhra Pradesh ,Velagapudi,Amaravathi,Guntur District,Through S.H.O., Gannavaram Police Station, N.T.R District . ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.Tanikonda Aveda Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 on the file of Gannavaram Police Station, N.T.R (Krishna) 2 District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 384, 420, 406, 379, 120 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’), Section 4 read with 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDARA’), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPPA’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on prior to 23.05.2023, at Panakala Cheruvu, Marlapalem village, Gannavaram Mandal, the then MLA, Mr.Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, along with his associates, Ravi, Seshu, Ranga, and Mechineni Babu, allegedly conspired to unlawfully dispossess local farmers of land they had cultivated for over three decades under valid B-form pattas. The complainant, Jasthi Murali Krishna, reported on 25.02.2025 that the accused used threats, coercion, and false assurances under the guise of “pond development” to forcibly seize control of approximately 18 acres of land. It is alleged that, without government sanction, the accused excavated soil from the lake using heavy machinery over a 40-day period and sold it for personal gain. When farmers resisted or sought media intervention, they were summoned to the MLA’s office, where further intimidation and inducements were made. Promises of alternative land were never fulfilled. Subsequent attempts to seek redress were met with threats of violence and dismissal. The complainant asserts that the acts constitute criminal intimidation, cheating, conspiracy, and misappropriation of public resources. 3. Sri Tanikonda Aveda, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in 3 this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.4. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police 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: a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC 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.’); 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 b)All 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 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.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. State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh 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 35 and 35(3) of ‘the 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner shall oblige to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD.Asfak Alam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 03.09.2025 VTS