'1 . Mudumala Sidda Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in non-following the provisions of section 35 of BNSS and non-following the directions of the ...RESPONDENTS Honourable Apex (lourt in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and trying to arrest the Petitioners in Crime No. 750 of 2025 for the offences under section 137(2),78, rlw 3(5) BNS on the file of P.S. Nagole is highly illegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutiona I and violation of Articles 14, '15 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No. 5 to follow the due process of law U/sec. 35 of BNSS and directions of the llon.ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in crime No. 750 of 2025'for lhe offences under section 137(2),78, r/w 3(5) BNS on the file of P.S. Nagole. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 to follow the due process of law U/sec. 35 of BNSS and directions of the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in crime No. 75O o'f 2025 for the offences under section 137(2).78, rlw 3(5) BNS on the file of P.S. Nagole. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. SUHAS CHARY REPRESENTING FOR SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, ADVOCATE Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - - - - The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.32215 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- "...to tbsue a writ, order or direction more padiculady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.s in nonlollowing the provisions of Seclrbn 35 of AA/SS and non-following the directions ot the Hon'ble Apex Coud in Amesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and trying to arrest the petitioners in Crime No.750 of 2025 for the offences under Section 137(2), 78 r/w 3(5) BNS on the file ol P.S. Nagole is highly illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and violation oF Adicles 14, 15 at)d 21 of lhe Constilution of lndia and also violation of the Prnrciples of Natural JLtstrce and consequently direct the respondent No.s to follow the due process of law under Sectio? 35 of BNSS and directions of the Hon'ble Apex Coutl in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Slate of Bihar in Crime No.750 of 2025 for the offences under Seclion 137(2). 78 rlw 3(5) BNS on the file of P.S Nagole and pass. .'

2. Heard Mr.A. Suhas Chary, learned counsel representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits lhat Crime No. 750 of 2025 has been registered on the file of Nagole Police Station. lt is contended that the petitioners are apprehending arrest as respondent No.5 is allegedly not adhering to the due process of law and the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. I State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 2731. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for appropriate directions to safeguard the petitioners' rights. I I \ \- 2

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, submits lhal Cime No. 750 of 2025 was registered on 19.10.2025, and that the investigation is presently in progress. lt is further submitted that the concerned police authorities shall conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law.

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, it is evident that the crime has already been registered and investigation is ongoing. Therefore, the respondent police authorities are directed to conduct the investigation and all consequential proceedings strictly in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the procedural safeguards envisaged under the CrPC/BNSS, and the principles laid down in judicial pronouncements, particularly the guidelines in Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra).

7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. S $ //TRUE COPYII EENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR I CTION OFFICER The Principat Secretary, HoT_"^?"p,1,1rent The s,",\.J rur"ngunr, , secreta riar, S_ecreta riai B uitd ingi, fttJ;;;i;; :'" "-'- " I he Director Generat of potice."ibta;qr,il'Birt". Hvderabad. /)->a \-- \ To, 1 2 -----7 \

3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar Division, Rachakonda

5. The Station House Officer, Nagole Police Station, Rachakonda

6. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7 . fwo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Commissionerate. Commissionerate BN PVL \y /--1= HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 l I ORDER WP.No.32215 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 Itl I l'!,.!-ll :€ f 0 4 l.l0v ztEl SFa'C t