Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Atikela Sravani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2026
1
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026
Date of reserved for orders : Nil
Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010345642026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5556/2026
Between:
1. ATIKELA SRAVANI,, W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT
24YEARS,OCCUP.CURRENTLY NOT WORKING , RESIDENT OF
D.NO.177,TELIA QUARRY AREA, JAGAJIVANRAO COLONY,
PRAKASH NAGAR,TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. YANAGANTI VENKATA ANJANEYA PRASAD,, S/O RAMA RAO,
AGEDABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BRANCH MANAGER BAJA GOLD
LOAN,RESIDENT OF D.NO.7-85, NUNNA, VIJAYAWADA RURAL,
NTRDISTRICT.
3. TORLIKONDA SAI KIRAN,, S/O PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCEMPLOYEE IN GOLD LOAN COMPANY. RESIDENT OF D.NO.7-
99,NUNNA, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Represented by its Station House
Officer,Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada City.Through the Public
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati - 522237.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026
KUKKALA RAVI TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking
to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 in Crime
No.60 of 2024 of Bhavanipuram Police Station, NTR District registered for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC‘).
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. Even in the petition for grant of pre-arrest bail, the learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the alleged offences are punishable with
imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to the benefit under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’ in view of the
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1
and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2.
4. Per contra, Mr.A.Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits
that, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer altered the
provision of law from Section 409 of ‘the IPC‘ to Section 408 of ‘the IPC‘.
He further submits that, although the allegations levelled against the
petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the
investigation is still in progress.
5. As seen from the record, the offences alleged against the
petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 are punishable with imprisonment for a
term of less than seven years.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of
Telangana, Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal)
Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026 has held as follows:
“We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High
Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is
prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing
the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a
relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie
case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”
7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation3, wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held
as under:
1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
2
(2023) 8 SCC 632
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026
33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as
follows:
a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which
facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of
collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as
mandatory.
b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question
as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking
the said exercise.
c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of
the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in
Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence.
d. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused
or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule.
e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are
available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken,
unless it absolutely warranted.
f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b)
of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an
exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and
slow in exercising the said power.
8. Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra, 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, while3
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026forwarding/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.
9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Md.Asfak Alam supra, 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 Satender Kumar Antil,
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 petitioners are obliged
to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.2026
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the
Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of
Satender Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 15.07.2026
RSI
Whether the order is:
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5556 of 2026
Dated 15.07.202636
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5556 of 2026
Date: 15.07.2026
RSI
