APHC010373742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7699/2025 Between: INDRASENA ALIAS P INDRASENA, S/O P. SAMPOORNAMMA RESIDING AT NAGAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, II Town Police station, Tirumula, Tirupati District ...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 enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.127 of 2024 on the file of the II Town Station House Officer, Tirumala Station, Tirupati District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: M.S. BANU PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) and Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the BNS’)by the 2 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7699/2025 petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.127 of 2024 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupathi, 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 prior to 19.12.2024 at ATC Circle, Tirumala, the Accused and other colluded with each other and cheated one Sri V. Jagadish as well as TTD institution by receiving an amount of Rs.20,000/- on pretext of Darshan tickets but provided Rs.300/- Special Entry Darshan and hence, a case was registered. 3. Sri M.S. Banu Prasada Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.4. 4. 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 petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Perused the record. 3 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7699/2025 6. As seen from the record, the offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 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; 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7699/2025 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. AsfakAlamVs. 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 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 BNSS.,’). The petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 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. AsfakAlam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.07.2025 KAS 2(2023) 8 SCC 632