APHC010484172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9539/2025 Between: NELAGIRI SUNITHA, C/O.NELAGIRI HARISH, AGED ABT 26 R/O.5-25, D B COLONY, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, AMAL COLLEGE (P), ANAKAPALLI TOWN. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Anakapalli Town P.S., Anakapalli, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.161 of 2025 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2025 at about 17.00 hrs, near the Water Tank, Poolbagh Road, Anakapalli, acting on credible information regarding the illegal possession and sale of ganja, the Sub- Inspector of Police informed his superiors and, after securing mediators, conducted a raid with his staff. During the raid, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended, of whom Accused Nos.3 and 4 are absconding. Seized from their possession were 2 kgs of ganja worth Rs.10,000/-, a light blue Realme Android mobile phone, and cash of Rs.250/-, under the cover of the mediators’ report. 3. Mr. Anand Kumar Kochiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and she has 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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 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, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 01.10.2021 in Crl.P.No.5349 of 2021 at Page No.25, observed that Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ can also be applied to offences under ‘the NDPS Act’ where the offence is punishable with 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 imprisonment for less than seven years. Accordingly, a petition filed under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was disposed of with a direction to the investigating officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ against the petitioner therein. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was allegedly indulged in dealing with 1.00 kg of ganja, which he sold to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The appropriate provisions invoked are Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) read with 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’, which are punishable with imprisonment of up to one year insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.4 is concerned. 8. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations against the petitioner require the procedure under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to be followed. 9. 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: 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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. 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. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 10. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 11. 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 her fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 12. 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: 19.09.2025 RSI 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9539 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 561 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9539 of 2025 Date:19.09.2025 RSI