Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Manikala Annavaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
APHC010374142025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7730/2025
Between:
1. MANIKALA ANNAVARAM, S/0. PARRARAJU AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-96, JANGAREDDIGURM WEST GODAVARI,
ANDHRA PRADESH. 534447
2. SEELAMANJANEYULU, S/O. VEERASWAMI AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-135 PUTLAGATLAGUDEM,
JANGARDDIGUDEMMANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 534451
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati Through SHO,
Lakkavaram Police Station, Eluru distrcit
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
PILLIX LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7730 of 2025
Dated 31.07.2025
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’) by the
petitioner/Accused Nos.5 and 6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection
with Crime No.38 of 2025 on the file of T.Narsapuram Police Station, Eluru,
registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section303 (2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that in between 3:00 p.m. on 07.03.2025
to 7:30 a.m. on 08.03.2025, a theft occurred at a palm-oil and cocoa garden in
Singarayapalem Village. The owner had stored 175 kg of cocoa beans in the
field, but when he returned the next morning, he found them missing.
Unknown persons had stolen the beans, valued at approximately ₹35,000.
The incident was reported to the police on 09.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m.
3. Sri. P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence;they were falsely
implicated in this case; theyare sole breadwinners of their respective family;
theyare ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is
urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6.
4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not
completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be
3
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7730 of 2025
Dated 31.07.2025
available for the investigation and they will repeat the same offence; there are
two adverse similar antecedents against the petitioners on earlier occasion.
They are: Crime No.196 of 2025 and Crime No.197 of 2025 and it is urged to
dismiss the bail application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the offences leveled against the
petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 are punishable with imprisonment for less
than seven (07) years.
7. 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
1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7730 of 2025
Dated 31.07.2025
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.
8. The similar view is also reiterated by theHon’ble Apex Court in Md.
AsfakAlamVs. the State of Jharkhand2, which also reiterated the guidelines
laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.
9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md.
AsfakAlam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in
2
(2023) 8 SCC 632
5
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7730 of 2025
Dated 31.07.2025
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 petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in
the ongoing investigation.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the
Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’/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: 31.07.2025
JLV
6
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7730 of 2025
Dated 31.07.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7730 of 2025
Date:31.07.2025
JLV