APHC010478122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9432/2025 Between: M Venkata Sesha Chalapathi Alias Chalapathy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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/Accused for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.126 of 2025 on the file of Srikalahasthi I Town Police Station, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 118 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2025, at about 11:00 p.m., the de-facto complainant was assaulted on the mouth with a glass bottle by the accused, Chalapathi, causing a bleeding injury. The complainant’s 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9432 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 husband had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from Chalapathi at Rs.4/- per hundred per month interest, initially repaid at Rs.2,000/- monthly. Due to her husband’s ill health, Chalapathi later demanded Rs.200/- daily. After his mother’s death in May 2025, he temporarily stopped collections. The complainant, continuing repayments through her shop, offered to pay only the principal at Rs.5,000/- monthly, which Chalapathi opposed, warning her not to open the shop. When she did, he allegedly quarreled with and assaulted her. 3. Sri G. Ramesh Babu, the 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 abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused. 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 petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; there is a delay of nearly lodging the FIR and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offence leveled against the Petitioner/Accused is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9432 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, 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: 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; 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. 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9432 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 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 theHon'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 is obliged 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 BNS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.09.2025 KMS 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9432 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 92 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9432 of 2025 Date:17.09.2025 KMS