APHC010650092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12594 OF 2025 Between: 1. B SUKUMAR, S/O. B. SWAMIDASU, AGE 31 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4/113-A, VIDYA NAGAR, PAPAMPETA, KALYANADURGAM ROAD, ANANTHAPURAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, THROUGH MAHILA URBAN P.S, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. UMMANI SUSEELA, W/O. B. SUKUMAR, AGE 29 YEARS, H.NO.47/82, KURNOOL TOWN, HARIJANAWADA, BUDHAWARAPETA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.12594 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. G V SHIVAJI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12594 OF 2025 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.87 of 2025 of Mahila Urban Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 74, 89 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 alleging that she married the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 on 19.09.2024. Later the defacto complainant and the Petitioner living together at Hyderabad for about two weeks, later the Petitioner started harassing the Respondent No.2 for additional dowry and abused her in filthy language and beat her. Basing on a complaint, the above crime was registered. 3. Heard Mr. Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record 4. Learned counsel would further submit that except the allegation of miscarriage, all the remaining offences are punishable below 7 years. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency sought for a report from the Hospital, where abortion took place. The Respondent No.2 stayed with the Petitioner only for three months, thereafter she left to her parental house. On 19.09.2025, the Petitioner filed a Petition for divorce, thereafter as an afterthought this case has been lodged only to trouble the husband and his family members. 5. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the grant of pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is completed, except arrest of the Accused. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 7. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the Petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 8. 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; 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 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. 9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 10. 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 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obligated to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 11. 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 and further the Police are directed to conclude the investigation and file report in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 20.01.2026 KK