APHC010347052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7161/2025 Between: NALLAPAREDDY PRASANNA KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. NALLAPAREDDY SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.24-1479, SUJATHAMMA COLONY, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 No.210 of 2025 on the file of Kovur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections74, 75 (1), 79, 296 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2025, at about 17:00 hours, at Rukmini Kalyana Mandapam, Kovur Town, and reported on 08.07.2025 at 17:00 hours, the accused, an Ex-MLA, N. Prasanna Kumar Reddy, along with other YSRCP party leaders, organized a meeting. During that meeting, the petitioner and others delivered a public speech containing vulgar, obscene, and defamatory language against the complainant, Vemireddy Prasanthi Reddy, MLA, Kovur. His statements were not only laced with obscene sexual innuendo but also sought to ridicule and slander her personal and family life, thus amounting to a deliberate attack on her dignity and reputation as a woman and a public servant. During the speech, the petitioner made outrageous remarks such as, “She did Ph.Ds in several places,” clearly intended to convey obscene innuendos. He and others further alluded to her marital relationship, causing intentional insult to the complainant, and constituting a blatant attempt to shame and chastise a woman through obscene language. Basing on the said report, police registered a crime against the petitioner/Accused No.1. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 3. Sri. O. Manoher Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, representing O.M.R. Law Firm, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that a memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner appending with certain photographs showing that the house of the petitioner was vandalized by the followers of the de-facto complainant. The petitioner has also submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, on 07.07.2025 requesting him to take action against the persons, who tried to kill him at the instance of the de- facto complainant, but no action has been taken so far. The petitioner has also tendered another report dated 08.07.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, to take action against the de-facto complainant but in vain. All the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a period of less than seven (07) years. It is further argued that Sections 74 and 75 of „the BNS‟ are not attracting to the case, it is urged to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. 4. Per contra, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail submitting that prima facie case was made against the petitioner; investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 same offence as he has resorted a similar offence, and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 7. On perusal of the contents of the FIR lodged by the de-facto complainant, the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner has resulted in insulting modesty of the de-facto complaint. There are specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, this case is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, all offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable for a period less than seven (07) years. 8. 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: 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 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.‟); 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. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. the State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 10. 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 B.N.S.S.,‟ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 11. This Court feels that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as there are specific overt acts attributed against him by the de-facto complainant, constituting an offence of insulting the modesty of the de-facto complainant, who is serving as an MLA. 12. For the above foregoing reasons, 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. 13. The investigating officer must proceed with an endeavor to finalize the investigation within a period of 90 days from today and submit his report under Section 193 (3) of „the B.N.S.S.,‟ 2023/Section 173(2) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟to the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate. 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 14. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.07.2025 RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7161 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 87 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7161 of 2025 Date:16.07.2025 RSI