APHC010390722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7932 OF 2025 Between: 1. T. Nancharamma, W/o Venkat Rao, Aged about 75 years, Occ: House wife, R/o D.No. 8-84A, 8*'' ward, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. Peddiboina Vara Prasad, , S/o Late Satyanarayana Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.11/69, 11‘^ Ward, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Peddiboyina Naga Sujatha, W/o P. Vara Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ House wife, R/o. D.No.11/69, 11 Andhra Pradesh. th Ward, Gudivada, Krishna District, ...Petitioners/ Accused No.1,2 & 3 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and 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 release the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 & 3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.191 of 2021 registered by the Gudlavalleru Police Station, Krishna/NTR District Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.V SUMANTH Counsel for the Respondent: Ms P. AKILA NAIDU, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: APHC010390722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] B WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7932/2025 Between: I.T. NANCHARAMMA, , W/0 VENKAT RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0 D.NO. 8-84A, WARD, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.PEDDIBOINA VARA PRASAD, , S/0 LATE SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.N0.11/69,11THWARD, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.PEDDIBOYINA NAGA SUJATHA,, W/0 P. VARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0. D.NO.11/69,11TH WARD, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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.1 to 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.191 of 2021 on the file of Gudlavalleru Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 18.09.2021, at the State Bank of India (SBI), Main Branch, Gudlavalleru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, a fraudulent transaction was reported by the complainant, Shaik Subhani. The complaint was formally lodged on 18.09.2021 at 15:30 hours. It is alleged that on 03.09.2021, the complainant approached the aforementioned branch of SBI seeking a personal loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of his salary. During this process, he came into contact with the accused, Padi Buchi Babu, serving in the capacity of Assistant Manager cum Field Officer at the said branch. The accused, Padi Buchi Babu, is alleged to have advised and induced the complainant to avail an additional loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchase a residential flat belonging to co-accused Peddiboina Vara Prasad and Peddiboina Naga Sujatha, residents of Gudivada, claiming that the said property was available at a discounted price of Rs.35,00,000/-. Believing the representations made by the accused persons, the complainant availed a total personal loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from SBI, Main Branch, Gudlavalleru. Subsequently, he transferred an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from his account 3 bearing No. 1073407760 to the account of accused Peddiboina Naga Sujatha bearing No.20306913856, in two separate transactions. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly demanded an increased sum of Rs.45,00,000/- for the registration of the said flat, contrary to the earlier quoted price of Rs.35,00,000/-. Despite repeated assurances, the accused persons refunded only Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and failed to honour the original agreement, thereby deceiving the complainant under the pretext of selling the fiat at a lower price. Sri N.V.Sumanth, the learned coLinsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are sole breadwinner of their family; they are ready to 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 3. 3. 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. 4. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 4 4 6. As seen from the record, the offences levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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;- 7. 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).AH 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.PC.’); bjAII police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officershall forwardthe 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 C.rPC 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. ’(2014) 8 see 273 V, 5 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.RC. 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.AsfakAlam v. 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 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 shall oblige to render their 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 strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD.Asfak Alam. / ^ (2023) 8 see 632 Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Police Station, Krishna/NTR 1. The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru District 2. One CC to Sri N.V Sumanth, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 06/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7932 OF 2025 O YO 14 AIIR ?0?5 Current secuon ^ m (he disposing of jhe criminal petition