APHC010381162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7832 OF 2025 Between: 1. G.Kamalamma, W/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 53 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 2. Kapu Suvarnamma, W/o.Eswar Reddy, aged 53 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 3. G.Diwakar Reddy, S/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 33 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 4. Praveen, S/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 30 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J. Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 5. Kapu Eswar Reddy, S/o.Lakshmanna, aged 60 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 6. Kapu Sandeep, S/o.Eswar Reddy, aged 29 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 7. Vinay Kumar S E, S/o.Eswar Reddy, aged 25 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 8. U.Nagesh Reddy, S/o.Bheemi Reddy, aged 35 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 8 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent No.1 2. Meti Hanumantha Reddy, S/o.Vemi Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, Ananthapuramu District. R/o. J.Venkatampalli, Gummagatta Mandal, ...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners by directing the police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in with Crime No.53 of 2025 of Gummagatta Police Station, connection Ananthapuramu District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2:-- The Court made the following: m ■ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7832/2025 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been fifed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.53 of 2025 on the file of Gummagatta Police Station Ananthapuramu District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2025 at 10:00 a.m., at the fields of the complainant, and reported on the same day at 03:00 p.m., the 2. accused Kamalamma and Suvarnamma criminally trespassed into the complainant's pomegranate garden and damaged the pomegranate plants. Subsequently, the accused Kamalamma along with seven others, with a common intention, picked up a quarrel and assaulted the complainant and his relatives, Eswar Reddy, Ranga Reddy, and Ananthamma, using sticks, hands, and legs, causing bleeding and blunt injuries. The injured were shifted to Government Area Hospital, Rayadurgam for treatment. Based on the statement of Meti Hanumantha Reddy, a case was registered. The incident is stated to have arisen out of a land dispute (rastha dispute) between the parties. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7832 of 2025 Dated 04.08.2025 3. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are sole bread winners of their family; they ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8. are 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 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. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences leveled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 reproduced herein below;- in 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 '(2014) 8 see 273 3 .m ■ Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7832of2025 Dated 04.08.2Q25 mechanically. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 reproduced herein below;- in 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 '(2014) 8 see 273 3 .m ■ Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7832of2025 Dated 04.08.2Q25 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.PC.’); 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 twp 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.7832 of 2025 Dated 04.08.2025 The similar view is also reiterated by theHon'ble Apex Court in Md. AsfakAlamVs. the State of Jharkhand^, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnes/? Kumar. 8. 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 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. 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 strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. AsfakAlam. 9. 10. ^2002) 8 see 632 Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Gummagatta Police Station, Ananthapuramu District. 2. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati 4. Two CD Copies [OUT] BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7832 OF 2025 % ^*^W; 2025 ' ★Sr*"' .L# o DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION