APHC010663362025 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: 12695 OF 2025 Between: 1. LOKANATH REDDY, S/O. G.SREERAM REDDY. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O. 3-84,REDDY VARI PALLI,KONDAPURAM, ANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI,, D/O. G. ANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 4-114A,YELLOTI VILLAGE,MADAKASIRA MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SRIRAMA REDDY,, S/O.GANGULA TIMMAREDDY. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.3/84,REDDY VARI PALLI,RAMAGIRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. LAKSHMIDEVI,, W/O. GANGULA SREERAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. REDDY VARI PALLI,RAMAGIRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (RAMAGIRI POLICE STATION,SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. ALAKUNTA SRI LAKSHMI, D/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. CHERLOPALLI VILLAGE, CHENNEKOTHPALLI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BANDI SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12695 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 Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.70 of 2025 of Ramagiri Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69, 88, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.2, who is defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that Accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage and caused pregnancy and that Accused No.1 and his family members threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case was registered against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 5. 3. Heard Mr. Bandi Srihari, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.Sandeep learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners are family members of Accused No.1. All the allegations are made against Accused No.1. The alleged offences against the Petitioners are not applicable, except the allegation of criminal intimidation. In fact, the matter is settled before the elders between Accused No.1 and victim girl and the Accused has paid Rs. 14,00,000/- to the victim on 29.11.2025. Accused No.1 was arrested and released on bail. Petitioner No.2, who is none other than sister of Accused No.1 is a pregnant lady. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on pre- arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. 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 petitioners are obligated to render their 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. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 20.01.2026 KK