APHC010429962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8650/2025 Between: Nandimandalam Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PANCHAGNULA RISHYENDRA SAI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 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 B.N.S.S.'), by the petitioner- accused No. 1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 129 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant has been supplying medicines with valid GST bills and drug license to Medcare Pharma located at KVR Petrol Bunk Center owned by accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the past four years. When the complainant approached accused Nos. 1 and 2 for payment, he found the shop closed and upon inquiry, accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave evasive replies blaming their manager, thereby dishonestly avoiding payment and cheating the complainant. 3. Sri P.Rishyendra Sai, 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 to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, 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 3 available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offence levelled 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 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, wherein 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; 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 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.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. AsfakAlam v. 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 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 shall oblige 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 BNSS’/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: 29.08.2025 JSK 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8650 OF 2025 Date: 29.08.2025 JSK