APHC010489562025 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. YASWANTH RAVULA, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O 4-60, KALAGARA VILLAGE, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, KALAGARA POST, KALAGARA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. Through the Sub Inspector, Vissannapet Police Station, NTR District Counsel for the Petitioner/accu 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita Petitioner/Accused No.2 Crime No.74 of 2025 of registered for the alleged 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: 9630 of 2025 YASWANTH RAVULA, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 20 60, KALAGARA VILLAGE, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, KALAGARA POST, KALAGARA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. Through the Sub Inspector, Vissannapet Police Station, NTR District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY 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 No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with of 2025 of VissannapetPolice Station, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO YASWANTH RAVULA, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 20 60, KALAGARA VILLAGE, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. Through the Sub Inspector, Vissannapet Police Station, NTR District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the arrest bail in connection with Police Station, NTR District, fences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’) CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.2025 at 12.00 hrs on receipt of credible information, the Police along with mediators conducted check near Lions Club, Putrela Road, Vissannapeta Town and apprehended the Accused No.1 and seized the ganja weighing about 1.5 Kgs in two packets worth of Rs. 7,500/- under cover of mediators’ report. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, 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, 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’ if the offence is punishable with 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. This Court also in Criminal Petition No. 9539 of 2025 on 19.09.2025 observed that provisions of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’/ 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ can also be applied to the offence under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, if offence is punishable with an imprisonment of less than 7 years. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, the allegations against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 is that he was found in possession of 1 Kg of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. Therefore application of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of ‘the NDPS Act’ would not be applicable. It is applicable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’, for which the punishment is up to one year. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 11. The similar view is also reiterated by theHon'ble Apex Court in Md. AsfakAlam v. the State of Jharkhand2, reiterating the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 12. 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 her fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. CONCLUSION: 13. 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: 9630 of 2025 23.09.2025 KK