M RAGUVEER KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , THROUGH SHO, GAJULA

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , THROUGH SHO, GAJULA MANDYAM POLICE STATIONREP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

2. DUVVURU SUBBA REDDY, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAM REDDY,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D. NO.17- 28/10,NEW BYPASS CIRCLE, KADAPA ROAD, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517520.. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13506 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash the proceedings in the FIR. No. 291 of 2025, on the file of Gajula mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased The Petitioners ; are unable to get the certified copies of Complaint and FIR. No. 291 of 2025, on the file of Gajula Mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District, they filed Xerox copy of in FIR. No. 291 of 2025, on the file of Gajula mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District and they are praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copies of Complaint and FIR. No. 291 of 2025, on the file of Gajula Mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District and receive the main criminal Petition on file in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR. No. 291 of 2025, on the file of Gajula Mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District pending disposal of the petition including appearance and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13506 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 connection with Crime No.291 of 2025, dated 04.11.2025 of Gajula Mandyam Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318 (4), 336 (3) and 351(2) of BNS read with 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. As seen from the record, the alleged offences leveled against the petitioners 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: 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 from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’); flowing 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13506 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 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. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13506 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025

5. 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.

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 petitioners are obliged to render their 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. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.12.2025 RMD 2 (2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.13506 of 2025 Dated 31.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13506 of 2025 Date:31.12.2025 RMD