APHC010356472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7410 OF 2025 Between: 1. Palaparthi Rajeswaridevi, D/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 33 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Door No. 1-50-61, Aritakulapeta, Near ROM Church, Prakash Nagar, Chirala, Bapatia District. 2. Chinnapothula Vinod, S/o. Rajeswara Rao, Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Door No. 02-10, Beside Gate, Murukondapadu Village, Guntur District. ...Petitioners/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to them by directing the police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 99 of 2025, dated 17.05.2025 of Chebroiu Police Station, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Kishore Kumar Katari, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. The Court made the following order: APHC010356472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7410/2025 Between: 1.PALAPARTHI RAJESWARIDEVI, D/0. NAGESWARA RAO AGED 33 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE R/0. DOOR NO. 1-50-61, ARITAKULAPETA, NEAR ROM CHURCH, PRAKASH NAGAR, CHIRALA, BAPATIA DISTRICT. AGED 36 S/0. RAJESWARA RAO, R/0. DOOR NO. 02-10, BESIDE GATE 2.CHINNAPOTHULA VINOD YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, MURUKONDAPADU VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ) j ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): KISHORE KUMAR KATARI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, j <:rl.P.No.7410 of2025 Dated 25.07.2025 4 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 petitioners/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025 of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 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 17.05.2025 at about 3:00 P.M. the complainant/Shaik Ismail, a goldsmith, reported a gold cheating incident to the police. The complainant stated that between 12.05.2025 to 16.05.2025, he was defrauded of Rs.8,00,000/-. The complainant was contacted by a woman, Vijayalakshmi Naidu, who claimed she needed to sell 127 grams of gold cheaply for hospital expenses. On 14.05.2025, the complainant and his friend met her at Narakoduru and verified 115 grams of gold. They agreed on a price of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the complainant did not have the full amount. He then conspired with his friend Desu Srinivas, a jewelry salesman, to buy the gold at a low price arfd split the profit. The complainant’s friend obtained 3 / Dr. YLR, J Crt.P.No.7410of2025 Dated 25.07.2025 Rs.6,50,000/- from his shop owner, which, combined with the complainant’s Rs. 1,50,000/-, made up the total of Rs.8,00,000/-. On 16.05.2025, the complainant and his friends met the woman and two unknown men in a car near Panjabi Dhaba Hotel. The complainant showed them the cash, and after a brief exchange where he initially verified the real gold, the woman swapped the box. The accused quickly drove away with Rs.8,00,000/-, leaving the complainant with a box containing fake gold. Realizing he was cheated, the complainant reported the incident. The police registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2025. 3. Sri. Kishore Kumar Katari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they falsely implicated in this case; they are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused. are 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 petitioners are enlarged on pre arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 4. 4 Dr. VLR, J CrI.P.No.7410 of2025 Dated 25.07.2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Perused the record. As seen from the record, the petitioners contend that their names 6. are not mentioned in the report lodged by the de-facto complainant. Petitioner No. 1/Accused is a female, aged about 33 years, and she is a practicing Advocate at Chirala. Further, the offences alleged against the petitioners 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 issued at Para Nos. 11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 7. 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.j; 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 '(2014) 8 see 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7410 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 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. 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand^, 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 ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7410 of 2025 Dated 25.07.2025 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 petitioners are obliged to render their 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 10. Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// F SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur District. 2. One CC tf fSrr Kishore Kumar Katari, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Pradesh. GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 25/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7410 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION