Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ankam Nagabhushanam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010335912026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5358/2026
Between:
1. ANKAM NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O.A.RAMA KRISHNAAGED 56
YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
2. YADAMREDDY SIVAJI NAIDU ALIAS VASIREDDY SHIVAJI,
S/O.Y.SATYANARAYANAAGED 42 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU
VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
3. POLISETTY NAGA SESHU, S/O.P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYAGED
71 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
4. BELLAMKONDA BALA YESU, S/O.B.SATNARAYANA,AGED 40
YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
5. YADAMREDDY SURIBABU, S/O.Y.RAMA KRISHNAAGED 53 YEARS,
R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
6. POLISETTI SATYANARAYANA, S/O.P.RADHA KRISHNA
MURTHYAGED 48 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM
MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
7. TANNIDI SREENIVAS, S/O.T.MADHAVA RAOAGED 49 YEARS
R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST
2
GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
8. YADAMREDDY RAMA KRISHNA PEDDANNA VARA PRASAD,
S/O.Y.PARAMESWARA RAO, AGED 60 YEARSR/O.KOPPARRU
VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House
Officer,Narsapuram Rural Police StationNarsapuram, W.G. DistrictRep.
by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI
2. VARSHITHA K
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 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 to 4 and un-numbered
accused in Crime No.100 of 2026 of Narasapuram Rural Police Station, West
Godavari District registered for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2) read with 190, 333, 134, 74, 324(5), 351(3)
read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
3
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners without approaching the
learned Session Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail and has
directly approached this Court, which procedure is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1
and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at
paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:-
“7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C
in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the
particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it
much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the
application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court
which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned
Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions
Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary
thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.
8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications
for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the
parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions
Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of
pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We
say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions
Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a
strong probability that significant number of applications would be
allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before
the process reaches the High Court.
9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice
requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court
for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of
such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High
Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just
exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may
entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra-
ordinary circumstances.”
1
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc.
4
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra wherein at para No. 6
as under:
“6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere
concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this
matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent
jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining
applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again
observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an
alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This
approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving
the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court.
Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to
assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in
concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind
from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for
directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-
complainant as a party.”
6. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the
BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners
establishes a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the
averments, the Petitioners neither established a special case nor extra-
ordinary circumstance. However, in view of the orders passed in Mohammed
Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, as they have not
approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the alleged offences
are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven (07) years.
Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 35(3) of ‘the
5
BNSS.,’ in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar
v. State of Bihar3 and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand4.
8. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the
Petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.
9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation5, wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as
under:
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.
10. 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
3
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4
(2023) 8 SCC 632
5
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
6
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 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.
11. 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.
7
12. 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.
13. 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. If it is noticed in the
course of investigation that the Petitioners have committed any offence which
is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the Investigating Officer
is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 10.07.2026
PRA
Whether the order is:
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
853
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5358 of 2026
Date: 10.07.2026
PRA
