APHC010380502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMS tT: FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7799 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sare Sateesh Kumar, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged of Moolasagaram, Nandyal Town and District. about 22 years. Resident •..Petitioner/accused no.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi Through Nandyal III Town Police Station Nandyal. ...Respondent/complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the petItioner/Accused no.2 on bail in the arrest in relating to the Crime No. 79 of 2025 dated 29-05-2025 on the fiie of the Nandyal III Town Police Station, Nandyal. event of his This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum Grounds of Criminal Petition SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Additional Public Prosecutor of and upon hearing the Advocate for the Petitioner on behalf of the Respondent No.1 arguments of Sri and of the The Court made the following ORDER : ^ r / THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7799/2025 ORDER; Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.79 of 2025 on the file of Nandyal III Town Police Station, Nandyal registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.05.2025 at 20:30 hours at Chandra Hotel, Bommalasatram, Nandyal, and reported at the police station on 29.05.2025 at 22:00 hours. Accused No.1, B. Pedda Subbarayudu, and Accused No.2, Satish, picked up a wordy quarrel with the complainant, Kunduru Krupanidhi. During the altercation. Accused No.1 beat the complainant on the nose with an empty Thumbs Up bottle and also hit his right hand, causing bleeding from the nose. Accused No.2 pushed the complainant to the ground. Thereafter, both accused assaulted him with hands and legs and threatened him with dire consequences. The incident is stated to have occurred due to previous disputes among them. 2 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.N0.7799 of2025 Dated 01.08.2025 Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, 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 bread winners 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.2. 3. 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is 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 Blhar\ 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 Magistral^ do not authorize detention casually and '(2014) 8 see 273 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7799 of2025'^- . Dated 01.08.2025 mechanically. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Blhar\ 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 Magistral^ do not authorize detention casually and '(2014) 8 see 273 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7799 of2025'^- . Dated 01.08.2025 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 (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; 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. 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. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7799 of2025 Dated 01.08.2025 8. The similar view is also reiterated by theHon'ble Apex Court i AsfakAlamVs. 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. AsfakAlam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the in Md. 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 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 BNS741-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strrctiy follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. AsfakAlam. ^ (2023) 8 see 632 SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The SHO, Nandyal III Town Police Station, Nandyal. 2. One CC to SRI. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi at 4. Two CD Copies NSV TAG HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7799 OF 2025 THE CRLP IS DISPOSED OF