APHC010463832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9198 OF 2025 Between: R.Sujatha, S/o. Late Veera Raghavulu Naidu, Age 50 years, R/o. D. No. 8-9, Kailasapuram Village, Parameswaramangalam Post Mandal, Tirupathi District Puttur ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Through the Station House Officer Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District. High Court ...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/Accused on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 127 of 2025 on the file of Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District. Counsel for the Petitioner ; SRI PANGULURU RACHANA, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010463832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9198/2025 Between: R. SUJATHA, S/O. LATE VEERA RAGHAVULU NAIDU AGE 50 YEARS, 8-9, KAILASAPURAM VILLAGE, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATHI NO. D. R/0. PARAMESWARAMANGALAM POST DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Through the Station House Officer THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, j Crl.P.No.9198 of2025 Dated 16.09.2025 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/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 127 of 2025 of Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’). The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2022, at the house of his grandmother situated at Kailasapuram Village, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, the incident occurred. The matter was reported to the Police Station on 14.08.2025 at about 01:00 P.M. by the complainant, stating that the accused cheated him by selling 8.89 cents of a house site in Sy.No.143-1 of Kailasapuram revenue account for a consideration of Rs.11,60,000/-. However, due to certain technical issues in the Revenue Department, the said house site was not registered in his name. Since then, the complainant has been in possession and enjoyment of the said site. Subsequently, one B. Kiran Kumar, S/o B. Ramamoorthy, resident of PR Mangalam Village, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, visited the said site and started cleaning the premises. When 2. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9198 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 questioned, he produced a document showing that he too had purchased the same site from the accused. Thus, the accused, with dishonest intention, sold the same property to both the complainant and B. Kiran Kumar on different dates and thereby cheated them. Hence, the FIR. Ms. Panguluru Rachana, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and she has 3. been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, her incarceration would cause undue hardship to her dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the 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 she may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and Dr. YLR, j Crl.P.No.9198 of2025 Dated 16.09.2025 evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, 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 years. seven (07) 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;- 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 for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevitv ‘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 fonwarding/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 in '(2014) 8 see 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9198of2025 Dated 16.09.2025 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. 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. 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 8. guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and 9. 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 ^(2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLR, j Crl.P.No.9198 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render her 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 BNSV41-A of the Cr.P.C., and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. AsfakAlam. 10. SD/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum JFCM Puttur. 2. The Station House Officer, Puttur Police Station, Tirupathi District. 3. One CC to Sri Panguluru Rachana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAG I HIGH COURT DATED: 16/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 9198 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION