APHC010414982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST/O TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8422 OF 2025 Between: Kantamreddy Santhosh, S/o. Ramu Naidu, Aged 30 years, Occ; Driver, Avarajam Village, Atchyutapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioner/Third Party AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Police, Parawada Police Station, Anakapalli District, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent 2. Kaaki Srinu, S/o.Late Apparao, Aged about 31 Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District. years, Occ; Mechanic, ...Defacto Complainant/Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances Stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in F.I.R. No.117 of 2025 on the file of Parawada Police Station, Anakapalli District on 01-05-2025 by way of granting Anticipatory Bail. M-% lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 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 Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent/Police not to Petitioner in F.I.R. No.117 of 2025, on the file of Parawada Police Station Anakapalli District on 01-05-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PANGI RAJU BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1; PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: arrest the APHC010414982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8422 OF 2025 Between: 1.KANTAMREDDY SANTHOSH, S/0 RAMU NAIDU, AGED 30 YEARS OCC DRIVER AVARAJAM VILLAGE, ATCHYUTAPURAM MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY POLICE, PARAWADA POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.KAAKI SRINU, S/O.LATE APPARAO,AGED ABOUT31 YEARS, OCC MECHANIC,CHODAPALLI VILLAGE,ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PANG I RAJU BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 petitioner/Third party for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.117 of 2025 of Parawada Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 106(1), 125(b), 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his family members travelling to KGH, Visakhapatnam from Atchutapuram on his bike bearing No. AP 31 DV 9791 and when they reached Dharmarayudupeta Junction, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli District on 01.05.2025 at 10.30 hrs an unknown car driver driving at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. As a result, he lost control and the petitioner and his family members fell on road and they sustained abrasive injuries and severe head injuries to them. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/accused. 2. 3. Sri P. Raju Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. % '4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he 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 petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioner is 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: aj.AII 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 '(2014) 8 see 273 for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘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 foiwarding/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 % s 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 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. 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 petitioner is obliged 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/- M ^INIVAS ASSISTANT R^M^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri Pangi Raju Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AKR sree HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8422 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION