APHC010352552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7307/2025 Between: GAJULA SIDDHARTHA, S/O LATE GAJULA VIVEKANANDA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 4-72-14, C.B. COLONY, BEACH ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530007 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT NELAPADU, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MVP COLONY POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to grant bail to the petitioner/accused no.1 on the event of his arrest in Crime no. 222 of 2025 dated 13-05-2025 on the File of the Station House Officer, MVP Colony Police Station, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam City Visakhapatnam District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7307/2025 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.222 of 2025 of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 351(2), 79 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short ‘the PCAA’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant along with another established a horse-riding training center operations and commenced operations with 10 horses on 22.04.2025 at Shanti Ashram, Lawson’s Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam, with the permission from the Director. On 23.04.2025, a bull was intentionally released into the training area, posing danger to the horses and the complainant. On the following day, around 00:30 hrs, approximately 15 unknown individuals allegedly trespassed into the premises, assaulted the horses, injuring four, deleted footage from the security guard’s phone, and returned it with threats. They welded the entry gates shut, scattered saddles and gear, and obstructed access to the facility. On 25.04.2025, a group was found consuming alcohol at the premises. Later, six individuals admitted that they were sent by one Siddharth @ Sidhu to threaten the complainant. On 26.04.2025, five more persons arrived on Siddharth's behalf, demanded eviction, used abusive language, issued 3 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7307/2025 threats, demolished a shelter shed, and again welded the gates shut. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1. 3. SriBalu Anil Kumar Palla, 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. 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. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7307/2025 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)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. 5 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7307/2025 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak AlamVs. the 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 B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render his 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: 30.07.2025 KAS 2(2023) 8 SCC 632