APHC010360732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7501 OF 2025 Between: Govindam Srikanth, S/o.G.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 42 Village, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatia District (erstwhile Prakasam District) years, R/o.Koniki ...Petitioner/Sole Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. the Station House Officer, District, Rep. by the Public ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition may be pleased to grant bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 177 of 2025 on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMARAO Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: the High Court NEELAM > APHC010360732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 75Q1/2n?.i^ [3521] ■ ¥< Between: GOVINDAM SRIKANTH, S/O.G.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.KONIKI VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 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 bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 177 of 2025 on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban District, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATA RAMARAO NEELAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7501 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/sole Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 177 of 2025 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 75(1 )(iv), 79 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) the 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant reported that her father fixed her marriage with Amulothu Chandrasekhar, who is residing at Kazipet. On knowing the same, her brother-in-law made bad propaganda about her character, as she has Illicit intimacy with him and she got pregnancy through him. When it was questioned by her father and sister, accused stated that he likes the de facto complainant, for which he made false propaganda. He also threatened them that if they convene marriage with another person, he will kill them. The de facto complainant stated that accused made several phone calls and harassed her and also abused her in filthy language and even after blocking his number he made phone calls with 3 3![ Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7501 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 another number. The incident was reported on 15.05.2025 at 9:00 A.M., by the de facto complainant. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/sole accused. Sri Venkata Ramarao Neelam, the learned counsel, representing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 5. Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. f 4 Dr. YLR,J Crl.P.No.7501 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) 6. 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 7. 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: aj.AII the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498- A of the IRC 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 (forbrevity ‘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; 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; ’(2014) 8 see 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7501 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 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 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 without fine. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'bie Apex Court i:. 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 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 their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. reasons as or 8. in ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR,J Crl.P.No.7501 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSV41-A of 10. the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar an6 MD. AsfakAlam. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban District. 2. One CC to Sri. Venkata Ramarao Neelam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies To, PR sree . i . I i ■.3;j I HIGH COURT DATE 0:07/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7501 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE CRLP