APHC010488102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. GANJIKUNTA SUREKHA DEVI, W/O PARTHA SARATHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC NEHRU ROAD, PRODDATUR KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , through S.H.O., Police Station, Annamayya District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S V INDIRA 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 BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre Crime No.391 of 2025 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9636 OF 2025 GANJIKUNTA SUREKHA DEVI, W/O PARTHA SARATHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACT EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO. 4/428, NEHRU ROAD, PRODDATUR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , through S.H.O., Police Station, Annamayya District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with of 2025 of RayachotyPolice Station, Annamayya IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO GANJIKUNTA SUREKHA DEVI, W/O PARTHA SARATHI AGED CONTRACT EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO. 4/428, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , through S.H.O., Rayachoty Police Station, Annamayya District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the arrest bail in connection with Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is thaton 21.07.2025 the defacto complainant alleged that the Petitioner was introduced to her and other by one Ramana, who is working in Government Hospital and she informed to them that she would provide outsourcing jobs in Central Government in National Health Authority and that she is working as Vocational Teacher in KGBV and induced them to pay the amounts and believing her version, they have paid the amounts through Phonepe and later they received the appointment orders and they were given training at Hyderabad and later they were taken to Delhi under the pretext of training and kept them in a hotel for 15 days and later they were asked to go back stating that the online training would be imparted and later the training was given and informed that they would be given jobs, but later there was response and when they demanded to return their amounts, they were threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Smt. S.V.Indira, 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. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Sri Neelotpal Ganji, 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. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the alleged offence levelledagainst the Petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 8. 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 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. 9. The similar view is also reiterated by theHon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2, reiterating the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 10. 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 their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. CONCLUSION: 11. 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. AsfakAlam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9636 OF 2025 23.09.2025 KK