1 APHC010622642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11965/2025 Between: Sagina Deena Kumari ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.42 of 2025 of Pedebayalu Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(2), 336(2) and 337 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2 2. Perused the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1. She is a female aged about 57 years and has been working as a Junior Assistant in the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Chintapalli Village. There are no direct bank transactions between the petitioner and the other accused. There was no inflow of money into the personal account of the petitioner. A petition, vide Crl.P. No.11942 of 2025, seeking quashment of Crime No.42 of 2025 of Pedabayalu Police Station, was filed by Accused No.2/Voles Ghasi, Retired Manager, Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, who is the main kingpin. By order dated 19.11.2025, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the police to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. 4. As seen from the record, the main allegations are levelled against Accused No.2/Voles Ghasi, who is a retired Senior Assistant and also acted as FAC Manager of the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited. A show cause notice dated 29.10.2025 was issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited requiring the petitioner and Voles Ghasi to account for an amount of Rs.31,35,607/-. The petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation to the five charges, stating, 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 inter alia, that she acted as per the instructions of the FAC Manager, that he is solely responsible, and that she is ready to furnish accounts for the portion of the amount for which she alone is responsible. The petitioner is a government servant and all the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2, 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 2(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 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. 6. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 3 , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 7. 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 is obliged to render her fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 3(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 8. 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: 01.12.2025 S D P 6 30 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11942 OF 2025 01.12.2025 S D P