AHC01033809202S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6982 OF ^025 Between: Gudipalle Dinesh @ David Raju, S/o G Veda Nayakam, Aged 29 years R/o. B/B-353, B Camp, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Accused Nq.1 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner by Granting anticipatorybail to the Petitioner in the event of their arrest in Crime No.137/2025 registered at III Town Police Station, Kurnool, alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 324(4), 106(1) r/w 3(5) BNS. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkatesh Kosaraju Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: % r APHC010338092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6982 OF 2025 Between: I.GUDiPALLE DINESH ALIAS DAVID, S/0 G VEDA NAYAKAM, AGED 29 YEARS, R/0. B/B-353, B CAMP, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATESH KOSARAJU 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.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 137 of 2025 of Kurnool III Town Police Station, registered 4 • > for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 126(2) 106(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 324(4) 2023r 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2025 at about 8.30 complainant, the Accused No.1 are Accused No.2 and 3 making loud cries one Kapa Harinath Reddy, father of the p.m, in front of house of the defacto along with his friends, who and nuisance defacto complainant asked about the public nuisance and they put quarrel and invade on him with hands and legs and pushed him on the cement road and beat him and also damaged the motor cycle of the defacto complainant. The father of the defacto complainant sustained injuries and admitted to Medicover Hospital, Kurnool severe on 08.04.2025. Subsequebntly he was died on 10.04.2025. Hence, the registered against the Petitioner/Accused. case was 3. Mr. Venkatesh Kosaraju, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the Police. Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the he is ready to and it is urged 4. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of Public pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he 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. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. in 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 v\ihat 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 ‘(2014) 8 see 273 Tl.f \ 'Mi for arrest under the parameters laid down Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C.’); i3 dbove flowing from 1973 (for brevity ‘the b)AII police officers be provided with specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall fonward the check list furnish the reasons and materials which a check list containing duly filed and necessitated the arrest, while forwardmg/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the 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. 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only epply 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 accused X 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 Arnesh Kumar. 9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak A/am, 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 B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The Petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation In the result, the Criminal Petition is 10. disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS741-A of the Cr.P.C., and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. ^(2023) 8 see 632 Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// //9r SEeriON OFFieER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Kurnool III Town Police Station, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri Venkatesh Kosaraju Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER CRLP No. 6982 of 2025 g( 12 SEP 2025 IS) rrentSectioo,^^ «o* DISPOSING THE CRLP