APHC010353442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7322 OF Between: S.Nimsha, W/o. Narendra Babu, Age 30 Years MVR Police Colony, Pin Code; 520007 R/o. D.No.20-12-1242, (v) Rural, Krishna District Yanamalakuduru ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by P.S., Krishna District Rep. through Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. S.H.O, Machavaram High Court of ...Respondent praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bait to the Petitioner in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 186 of 2025 Vijayawada City, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on the file of Machavaram Police Station 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shalk Mohammed Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: Ismail APHC010353442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7322/2025 Between: S NIRUSHA, W/0. NARENDRA BABU, AGE 30, R/0. D. NO20-12-1242, MVR POLICE COLONY YANAMALAKUDURU (V) RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT PIN CODE 520007 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by S.H.O, Machavaram P.S., Krishna District Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 186 of 2025 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: LSHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 186 of 2025 on the file of Machavaram Police Station Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2025, Anumuladasu Ramesh of CSB Bank, Vijayawada Branch registered a case, stating that one Sura Narendra Babu, in collusion with Baja] Finance employees, K.Venkata Durga Prasad and others, fraudulently availed multiple gold loans of Rs.53,46,456/- between December, 2024 and February, 2025 against 884.5 grams of pledged gold, out of which 61.4 grams were later found to be genuine. The loan amounts were credited to Sura’s Federal Bank account and transferred to his wife and co-conspirators. A partial repayment of Rs.4,50,609/- was made on 12.05.2025, but further payments were stopped. 3. Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; she was falsely implicated in this case; she is sole breadwinner of his family; she IS ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu 4. 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, she would not be available for the investigation and she will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, there are specific overacts attributed to the Petitioner. Further, the offences levelled against the petitioner punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court i ' Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biha<;\ 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: 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 C.rRCj; are 7. in '(2014) 8 see 273 4 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; 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..PC. 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. I 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 8. guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. ^(2023) 8 see 632 5 9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Mam. the investigating officer is under iegal obiigation 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 view of the above, this Court feels grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. that this is not a fit case to Hence, 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 iin the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition 11. is disposed of. Sd/. K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, City, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail 3. Two CC [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada Advocate [OPUC] s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. GPC vna r i HIGH COURT DATED: 22/07/2025 \ ORDER CRLP NO. 7322 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION I