[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Boya Anji Alias Kunti Anji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
APHC010347192025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7258/2025
Between:
BOYA ANJI ALIAS KUNTI ANJI, S/O. NARASANNA AGE 30 YEARS
MAJOUR, OCC UN EMPLOYEE, R//O. ADONI TOWN AND MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
KALE VIJAYA RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
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’) by
the petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection
2
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
with Crime No.79 of 2025 on the file of Adoni I Town Police Station,
Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 9 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 318 (4), 61 (2) read
with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.05.2025 at about 17:00
hours, Accused No.1 was arrested, an amount of Rs.50,000/- and one
VIVO mobile phone were seized from his possession under cover of a
panchanama, attested by panchayatdars. It is alleged that Accused
No.1, along with Accused Nos.2 to 10 and some others, had criminally
conspired to organize cricket betting through mobile phones during the
TATA IPL cricket matches, thereby cheating the public with the intention
of earning illegal money. Accused Nos.1 to 9 are alleged to have
organized the cricket betting and collected money from members of the
public who participated in such betting. The amounts so collected were
allegedly handed over to Accused Nos.10 to 12, who further cheated the
public by not paying the winning amounts. Accused Nos.2 to 12 and
some others were absconding. Based on the confession of Accused
No.1, a case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.9.
3. Sri. Kale Vijaya Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely
3
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready
abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to
grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9.
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 petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest
bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the
same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application.
5. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, there are no specific allegations against
the petitioner/Accused No.9. Based on the confession of Accused No.1,
Accused No.9 was brought on book by the Investigating Officer.
However, the offences leveled against the petitioner/Accused No.9 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 Bihar 1, wherein detailed guidelines were
issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being
reproduced herein below:-
1(2014) 8 SCC 273
4
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
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 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.
5
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md.
Asfak Alam Vs. the State of Jharkhand 2 , 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. 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 petitioner is obliged to render
his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
10. In view of the above, this Court feels that this is not a fit case to
grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.9. Hence, the Criminal
Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with
2
(2023) 8 SCC 632
6
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
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.
11. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 21.07.2025
RSI
7
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.7258 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
115
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7258 of 2025
Date:21.07.2025
RSI
[ad_2]
Source link