1 APHC010155822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2377/2026 Between: 1. H SAFIYA, AGED 54 YEARS,C/O. HFIZ ABDUL KHYOOM TAHIR,JAMIA STAFF QUARTERS,NEAR MOHAMMEDIA, PRIMARY SCHOOL,OOOMERABAD, AMBUR, TIRUPATTUR, TAMIL NADU - 635808 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATITHROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,MAHILA UPS, ELURU. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 Court Pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 119 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Eluru, District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to direct the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner herein / Accused No.3 in connection with Crime No.119 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Eluru, and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2377 OF 2026 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.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.119 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 316 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that this pertains to subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband and parents-in-law, which occurred prior to 16.12.2025 at Oomerabad, Tirupattur, Tamil Nadu, and was reported on 16.12.2025 at 5:30 p.m. The complainant stated that she married Accused No.1 on 12.06.2022. Prior to the wedding, as per the demands of Accused Nos.1 to 3, dowry and other presentations were given. After the wedding, the complainant was sent to her matrimonial home. During her conjugal life, her husband, i.e., Accused No.1, and her parents-in-law, i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3, subjected her to both physical and mental harassment and demanded additional dowry on account of the birth of female children. Despite the intervention of elders and the provision of additional dowry, Accused Nos.1 to 3 did not mend their ways and forced her to remain in her natal home. The accused stated that they would permit her to resume conjugal life only upon 4 fulfillment of their demand for further dowry for the upbringing of their female children. 3. Heard Mr.G.Naga Satryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and his wife filed false complaint against him and his parents. The crime registered against the petitioner and other accused is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 5 7. 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 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. 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 6 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 the investigating officer shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023 (Section 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’). The petitioner is obliged to render her fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’/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.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 30.03.2026 S D P 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 7 200 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2377 OF 2026 30.03.2026 S D P