APHC010366052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7593/2025 Between: ManikalaAnnavaram and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of LakkavaramPolice Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections303(2) ofthe BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity‘the BNS’). 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 07.06.2025 at about 11:45 a.m., the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 22.05.2025, between 1:45 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., at an asbestos house (Rekula Shed) in Chakradevarapalli Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, some unknown offenders committed theft of 100 kilograms of cocoa nuts belonging to the defacto complainant and escaped with the stolen property, valued at approximately Rs.50,000. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence;they were falsely implicated in this case; they are the sole breadwinners of their families; they are ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused. 4. Per contra, Sri NeelothpalGanji, 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. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioners that they stole the cocoa nuts belong to the defacto complainant. 3 7. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offences leveled against the petitioners/accused are punishable with imprisonmentfor less than seven (07) years. 8. 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 Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. 8. 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 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 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. 9. The similar view is also reiterated by theHon'ble Apex Court in Md. AsfakAlamVs. the State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 10. In the light of the law laid down in the case of ArneshKumar and Md. AsfakAlam, 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 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 11. 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. AsfakAlam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.07.2025 S D P 6 16 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7593 of 2025 Date:29.07.2025 S D P