APHC010491132025 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: 9684/2025 Between: Devineni Avinash, and others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Veladi Sai Sri Harsha Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 20 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 132, 195(1), 189(3), 223, 285, 292, 293 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9684 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2025 at 17:00 hrs, the complainant, an ASI at Nandigama Town Police Station, reported that despite prohibitory orders under Section 30 of the Police Act, YSRCP leaders including District President Devineni Avinash, ex-MLA Monditoka Jaganmohan Rao, MLC Monditoka Arun, and several others along with party workers, unlawfully assembled on CM Road and conducted a rally/dharna towards Gandhi Bomma Center without permission. They ignored police warnings, pushed aside personnel, blocked traffic, and manhandled the complainant and other staff, obstructing them from performing their duties. The unlawful assembly disturbed public peace and order. He requested legal action against the accused for assault on a uniformed officer, obstruction of duty, and breaching public order. 3. Sri. Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are sole breadwinners of their respective family; they are ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 20. 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 petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they will repeat the same offence and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9684 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the offences leveled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 20 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9684 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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. 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. AsfakAlam v. the 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’. The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9684 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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: 19.09.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9684 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 30 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9684 of 2025 Date:19.09.2025 KMS