Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Manikala Annavaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 July, 2025
APHC010366052025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7593/2025
Between:
ManikalaAnnavaram and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. PILLIX LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the
petitioners/accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime
No.54 of 2025 on the file of LakkavaramPolice Station, Eluru District,
registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections303(2) ofthe
BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity’the BNS’).
2
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 07.06.2025 at
about 11:45 a.m., the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on
22.05.2025, between 1:45 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., at an asbestos house (Rekula
Shed) in Chakradevarapalli Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, some
unknown offenders committed theft of 100 kilograms of cocoa nuts belonging
to the defacto complainant and escaped with the stolen property, valued at
approximately Rs.50,000.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the
petitioners have not committed any offence;they were falsely implicated in this
case; they are the sole breadwinners of their families; they are ready abide
any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest
bail to the petitioners/accused.
4. Per contra, Sri NeelothpalGanji, 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 available for the investigation and they will repeat the same offence; and it
is urged to dismiss the bail application.
5. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the nature of allegations leveled against the
petitioners that they stole the cocoa nuts belongs to the defacto complainant.
3
7. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition
for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused. However, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offences leveled against
the petitioners/accused are punishable with imprisonmentfor less than seven
(07) years.
8. 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
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
1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4
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.
9. 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.
10. In the light of the law laid down in the case of ArneshKumar and Md.
AsfakAlam, 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
2
(2023) 8 SCC 632
5
B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation
in the ongoing investigation.
11. 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. AsfakAlam.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 29.07.2025
SDP
6
16
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7593 of 2025
Date:29.07.2025
SDP