APHC010413192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8343 OF 2025 Between: 1. Adari Kanaka Vara Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Balaji, D/o. Velaga Durga Rao Aged 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Maddala Vari Street Pothunuru Village, Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. 2. Velaga Durga Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 62 Cultivation, R/o. Maddala Vari Street, Kothuru Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. 3. Battraju Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, Aged 52 Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Gandhi Bomma Center, Village, Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. Kothuru, years, Occ: Pothunuru Village, years, Kothuru, Pothunuru 4. Nunna Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao Aged 52 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Gandhi Bomma Center, Kothuru, Pothunuru Village, Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. 5. Boddeti Venkata Naga Seshu, S/o. Bapiraju, Aged Cultivation, R/o. 53 years, Occ: Pothunuru Village, Near Sivalayam, Kothuru, Dendaiuru Mandal, Eluru District 6. Adari Rambabu, S/o. Late Adhinarayana, Aged 58 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Near Gowri Devi Temple, Kothuru, Pothunuru Village Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. y ; ^ / T*. Adarl Kannabbai, S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged 56 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o. Maddalavari Street, Kothuru, Pothunuru Village, Dendalur Mandal Eluru District, 8. Battraju Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Pandu, Aged 60 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Gandhi Bomma Center, Kothuru Pothunuru Village, Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT 2. Vegi Veera Babuji, S/o. Siva Murthi, Aged 62 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 5-138/1, Kothuru, Pothunuru Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District. 3. Boddeti Koteswara Rao, S/o. Bapiraju, Aged 57 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Pothunuru Village, Dendalur Mandal, Eluru District ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to them by directing the police to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 133 of 2025 of Dendaluru Police Station, Eluru District. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PETLURI NAGA RAJU, ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent No.1 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : The Court made the following ORDER : ^4 APHC010413192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8343/2025 Between: Adari Kanaka Vara Vijaya Lakshmi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSE D(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.PETLURI NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 'I ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners- accused 1 to 8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 133 of 2025 of Denduluru Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318 (1) and 335 read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 16-06-2025, the de facto complainant and some others converted their Ac. 92.00 cents of land into fishponds and gave it to the petitioners for management. While so, the petitioners formed a committee and created fake documents on the land situated in R.S.Nos. 656, 657, 658, 659 and 660 and collected high lease amounts from the farmers. 3. Sri P.Nagaraju, 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 family; they are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 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. 4. \ 3 5, Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the offences levelled against the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 to 8 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven 6. (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar\ wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos. 11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below; 7. 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..PC.’); b)AII 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..PC 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, '(2014) 8 see 273 7 4 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.RC. 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. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.AsfakAlam v. State of Jharkhand^, which also reiterated the guidelines 8, 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. 2023'). The petitioners shall oblige to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 9. 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 ^ (2023) 8 see 632 SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Dendaluru Police Station, Eluru District. 2. One CC to Sri Petiuri Naga Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies GPC TAG HIGH COURT DATED: 18/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8343 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION