APHC010025552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 382/2026 Between: GUDETI BALAKOTI REDDY, S/O. G. SRINIVASA REDDYAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O. H.NO.2-42, BACK SIDE OF RAMALAYAMTSUNDURU VILLAGE MANDAL,BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,T SUNDURU POLICE STATION, BAPATIA DISTRICTREP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. PADAMUTTAM KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC POLICE OFFICER (SI OF POLICE, KOLLURU P.S.), R/O. KOLLURU, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.382 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.05 of 2026 of T.Sundur Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 189(2) and 132 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 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:- 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: 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.382 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 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 imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.382 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 5. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 2, 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 petitioner is obliged to render his 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. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.01.2026 RSI 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.382 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 23 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.382 of 2026 Date: 21.01.2026 RSI