Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :30.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010258372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4093/2026 Between: 1. NARMADA, W/O DURGA PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU,R/O D.NO.2/1/112, NAIDUPETA,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through S.H.O., I Town Police Station,Srikalahasti, Tirupati DistrictRep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravati. ...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 Courtpleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 113 of 2024 registered by the S.H.O I Town police station, Srikalahasti, by imposing such conditions as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. THOTA ASHOK KUMAR 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"), seeking anticipatory bail in the event of the petitioner's arrest in connection with Crime No.113 of 2024 on the file of the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Srikalahasti, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, "the IPC"). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that the petitioner/Accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, "the IPC"). The allegations pertain to the commission of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. 4. Cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot go together, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,1, and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand2. 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 5. 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. So far six witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is permanent resident of Tirupati. The de facto complainant has also initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The crime was registered on 06.07.2024, and more than 18 months have elapsed since its registration. 6. However, on a perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, there is a prima facie case to consider the request of the petitioner under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’. Nonetheless, the circumstances of the case necessitate a thorough and comprehensive investigation. The voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be stifled at the threshold. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation3, has held at paragraph No.33 as under: 33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows: a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory. b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking the said exercise. c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 3 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026 conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence. d. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule. e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it absolutely warranted. f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power. 8. Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar4, 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 4(2014) 8 SCC 273 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. 9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 5, 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 35 and 35(3) of ‘the 5(2023) 8 SCC 632 B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged 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 Satender Kumar Antil , Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.06.2026 JLSR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 100 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4093 of 2026 Date: 30.06.2026 JLSR