APHC010373252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7729/2025 Between: 1. MANIKALA ANNAVARAM, S/0. PARRARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-96, JANGAREDDIGURM WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 534447 2. SEELAMANJANEYULU,, S/O. VEERASWAMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-135 PUTLAGATLAGUDEM, JANGARDDIGUDEMMANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534451 (A-6) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati Through SHO, Lakkavaram Police Station, Eluru distrcit ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.17 of 2025 of Lakkavaram Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2025, the de-facto complainant reported that he is a farmer cultivating crops such as cocoa and coconut. He stated that after harvesting his cocoa crop, he brought approximately 200 kilograms of cocoa pods to his home and was drying them on a vacant plot of land adjacent to his house. On 28.01.2025, at about 6:00 P.M., he gathered and weighed the dried cocoa beans near his house, arranged them properly. On the next day, he noticed that the cover placed over the cocoa beans had been removed. Upon inspection, he discovered that the cocoa beans belonging to him had been stolen. It was later realized that unknown thieves had stolen 200 kilograms of 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 dried cocoa beans stored near his house. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioners/accused. 3. Sri P.Aditya Harsha Vardhan, the learned counsel, representing Pillix Law Firm, for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they 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. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioners 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 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; 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 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 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 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 petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 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: 01.08.2025 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7729 of 2025 Dated 01.08.2025 171 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7729 of 2025 Date:01.08.2025 RSI