APHC010347932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI fiif MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY |c TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7185 OF 2025 Between: Chukka Pavan Kumar Reddy, S/o. Kannarao, Aged 33 years, R/o Flat No. 401, Sai Residency, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent 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 direct the Station House Officer, Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam to release the Petitioner/ accused No.1 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr.No. 45 of 2025, under sections 318(4), 336, 340(2) r/w 3(5) BNS 2023, dated 05.06.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. The Court made the following order: APHC010347932025 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: 7185/2025 Between: CHUKKA PAVAN KUMAR REDDY, S/0. KANNARAO, AGED 33 R/0 FLAT NO. 401, SAI RESIDENCY, MADHAVADHARA,VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Cr1.P.No.7185 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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 petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45 of 2025 on the file of Steelplant Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 340 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2025 at 17.00 hours the complainant reported that his father was working as a foreman in the BF-2 Department. He had completed B.Sc. and was searching for jobs at that time. He approached Chukka Pavan Reddy, who is a friend of real estate consultant Shiva. The said accused person offered a job in the Revenue Department to the complainant. Based on that, the complainant gave an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- through various transactions in the presence of Chukka Puma, who is the Accused No.2 in the present case and the wife of Chukka Pavan Reddy, petitioner/Accused No.1. Later, the accused neither provided the job and nor returned the money to the complainant. Thereafter, the accused 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7185 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 gave a cheque bearing number 40990388891. The complainant deposited the cheque in the bank, but it was returned due to insufficient balance in the said account. Later, he came to know that the accused persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2, had cheated the complainant. Basing the said report of the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1. on 3. Sri. Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. 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. 4. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner that he had issued fake appointment letter and fake joining 4 Dr. YLR, J , Crl.P.No.7185of2D25 Dated 21.07.2025 letter to the de-facto complainant under the guise of providing an employment in the Revenue Department and collected an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. 7. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 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 8. 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.’); 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; (2014) 8 see 273 5 ♦s Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7185 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. 9. Asfak AlamVs. 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 10. ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.m.7185 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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 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. 11. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to M/s Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 21/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7185 OF 2025 k 0 2 AUG 2025 ^ Current Section 69 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION