APHC010527092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10290/2025 Between: 1.TEJWANT ALIAS MANI SINGH, AGE 37 YEARS S/O. LATE MANJEET SINGH,R/O. H. NO. 1/41, PUNJABI BAGH WEST DISTRICT, DELHI - 110026 2.KARANJEET SINGH, AGE 36 YEARS S/O LATE MANJEET SINGH PARTNER IN M/S. MOHAN MOTOR CO.R/OH. NO. 1/41, PUNJABI BAGHWEST DISTRICT, DELHI - 110026 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer,Kia Police Station,Penukonda Mandal,Sri Sathya Sai District,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.YASWANTH GADE 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the 2 petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of Kia Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 318(4), 316(2), 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2025 at 12:30 PM, a complaint was lodged by K.Sai Nandan, Head of Production Management at Kia India Private Limited, alleging offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy. The complaint pertains to the disappearance of 940 engine units, discovered during a January 2025 stock reconciliation, resulting in substantial loss to the company. Investigations revealed recurring discrepancies since 2020, with a key incident on 12.12.2024 involving accused Patan Saleem (Accused No.1), who was captured on CCTV entering and exiting the Engine Shop Mobis gate during unauthorized vehicle movement. It is alleged that Accused No.1, in collusion with former employees, diverted engines sourced from Hyundai Motor India using falsified dispatch records, thereby misappropriating entrusted property under a common intention. Supporting evidence includes irregular gate entries, missing engine serial numbers, and reconciliation mismatches, indicating a systematic conspiracy. 3. Sri Yaswanth Gade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the in the similar circumstances, this Court granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners are also standing on the similar footing. 3 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that the Investigating Officer would strictly follow the requirements of Section 35 (3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.’ 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 6. 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 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 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.” 7. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 8. 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 shall oblige to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 9. Recording the above submission, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the investigating officer to comply with Section 35 (3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.’/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: 26.09.2025 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 VTS