Gadipally Srisailam, vs The State Of Telangana, on 14 May, 2025

Telangana High Court

Gadipally Srisailam, vs The State Of Telangana, on 14 May, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

        WRIT PETITION No.15103 of 2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“……to issue an 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 THE Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
2023 vide Section 35 (3) of BNSS Act in Crime
No.24 of 2025 for the offences under Section 189
(3), 61 (2), 224, 329(4), 331(5), 308(5) r/w 190
BNS Sec-3 of Public Property Damage Act on the
file of Chinnagudur Police Station Mahabubabad
District and without following the direction of
Honourable Apex Court in the Arnesh kumar Vs
State of Bihar and trying to arrest the Petitioner
is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violation
of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300A of Constitution of
India and also violation of Principles of Natural
Justice and consequently direct the Respondent
No.5 to follow the provisions of The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 vide Section 35
(3) of BNSS Act and to follow the directions of the
Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s
State of Bihar and issue the Notice under
Section 41-A Cr.P.C or under Section 35 (3) of
BNSS Act in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of
Police Station Chinnagudur and pass……”

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhasker, learned counsel for

the petitioner, and Sri R. Laxmikanth Reddy, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage

of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has not committed any offences much

less the offences alleged in Crime No.24 of 2025 of

Chinnagudur Police Station registered for the

offences under sections 189(3), 61(2), 224, 329(4),

331(5), 308(5), r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

(for short ‘BNS’) and Section 3 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and he was

falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime as accused

No.5. Even according to the allegations made in the

complaint, the ingredients of Section 308(5) of BNS,

do not attract and the other offences levelled against

the petitioner are punishable with an imprisonment

of below seven years. The respondent No.5 with an

intention to arrest the accused, while investigating

the case itself included the offence under Section

308(5) of BNS to avoid the procedure as
contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS and also

guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1. The petitioner is not

having any criminal antecedents and he is ready

and willing to cooperate with the investigation and

also abide by the conditions that may be imposed by

this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

5 submits that there are specific allegations levelled

against the petitioner and the investigation is under

progress. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled

the relief as sought in the writ petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made

by the respective parties and after pursual of the

material available on record, this Court is of prima

facie view that the allegations made in the complaint

do not attract the offence under Section 308(5) of

BNS against the petitioner. Even according to the

learned Assistant Government Pleader, accused

1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
No.1 has already been arrested and the petitioner is

not having any criminal antecedents.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case, without going in to the

merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate

to direct the petitioner to appear before the

Investigating Officer on or before 20.05.2025. On

such appearance of the petitioner, the Investigating

Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the

procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(Cr.P.C.)/Section 35(3) of BNS and the guidelines

issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs.

State of Bihar.

8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall

cooperate with the Investigating officer and make

himself available as and when required for the

purpose of investigation and also provide the

information/documents as sought by him to

conclude the investigation. If the petitioner fails to

cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the

course of investigation, the Investigation Officer is at
liberty to take action against him in accordance with

law.

9. With the above direction, the writ petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO

Note: Issue C.C tomorrow
Date: 14.05.2025
mmr/Tu