\ I -1 APHC010347192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7258 OF 2025 Between: Boya Anji @ Kunti Anji @ Boya Anjineyulu, S/o. Narasanna, Age 30 years, Major, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. Adoni Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.9 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and 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/Accused No.9 on bail in the event of her Arrest in Cr. No. 79 of 2025 on the file of Adoni I Town Police Station Kurnool District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: APHC010347192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7258/2025 Between: BOYA ANJI ALIAS KUNTI ANJI, S/0. NARASANNA AGE 30 YEARS MAJOUR, OCC UN EMPLOYEE, R//0. ADONI TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; ORDER: The Crirninal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl. P.No.7258 of2025 Dated 21.07.2025 with Crime No.79 of 2025 on the file of Adoni I Town Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 9 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 318 (4), 61 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.05.2025 at about 17;00 hours. Accused No.1 was arrested, an amount of Rs.50,000/- and one VIVO mobile phone were seized from his possession under cover of a panchanama, attested by panchayatdars. It is alleged that Accused No.1, along with Accused Nos.2 to 10 and some others, had criminally conspired to organize cricket betting through mobile phones during the TATA IPL cricket matches, thereby cheating the public with the intention of earning illegal money. Accused Nos.1 to 9 are alleged to have organized the cricket betting and collected money from members of the public who participated in such betting. The amounts so collected were allegedly handed over to Accused Nos. 10 to 12, who further cheated the public by not paying the winning amounts. Accused Nos.2 to 12 and some others were absconding. Based on the confession of Accused No.1, a case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.9. 3. Sri. Kale Vijaya Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely 3 Dr. YLR, i. CrI. P. No. 7258 of2025 Dated 21.07.2025 implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9. and it is urged to 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant 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. Public 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.9. Based on the confession of Accused No.1, Accused No.9 was brought on book by the Investigating Officer. However, the offences leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.9 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court i Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar\ wherein detailed guidelines issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- in were ‘(2014) 8 see 273 Dr. YLR, J CrI. P. No. 7258 of2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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 Cr.P.C.j; ^ b)AII police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section ‘the 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall fonward 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 territorialjurisdiction. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. the State of Jharkhand^, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 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. In view of the above, this Court feels that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with 8. 9. 10. ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7258 of2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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. 11. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Station House Officer, Adoni I Town Police Station, Kurnool District One CC to Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. GPC vna ' * HIGH COURT DATED: 21/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7258 OF 2025 p 11| AUG 2025 J Current Section ^»!ioESPATC^>^ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION