APHC010711832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13499/2025 Between: 1. LAKA VASUNDHARA,, WIFE OF ANKA BABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.202, DREAM HOME HORMONY, KANAKADURGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BALIBOYINA VENGAMMA,, WIFE OF VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.202, DREAM HOME HORMONY, KANAKADURGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. BALIBOYINA VENKATA RATNAM,, SON OF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.202, DREAM HOME HORMONY, KANAKADURGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. BALIBOYINA JANARDHAN,, SON OF VENAKTA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.202, DREAM HOME HORMONY, KANAKADURGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. N.V.K.KARTHIK THANDRA,, SON OF SURESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 1-61, THONDIPAKA VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 507114. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, THROUGH SHO, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATAMATA POLICE STATION, 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13499 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. LAKA ANKABABU, SON OF ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/0 48-19-7F, GALAXY HEIGHTS, FLAT NO. 104, SRI RAMA CHANDRA NAGAR, NEAR AYUSH HOSPITAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 473 of 2025, on the file of the Patamata Police Station, Krishna District, against the petitioners, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4) BNS. The petitioners also pray that this Hon'ble Court may pass any other order or orders that it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of Crime No.473 of 2025 dated 12-09-2025 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Krishna District before this Hon‟ble Court and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant a stay on all further proceedings in Crime No. 473 of 2025, on the file of the Patamata Police Station, Krishna District, against the petitioners, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4) BNS pending disposal of main petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KROVI LAKSHMI SUVARCHALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13499 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.473 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS”). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 4. 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:- 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13499 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 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. 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 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13499 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 5. 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. 6. 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 petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of „the BNSS‟/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: 31.12.2025 RMD 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13499 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13499 of 2025 Date:31.12.2025 RMD