Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mekala Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 July, 2026
APHC010377782026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6129/2026
Between:
1. MEKALA KRISHNA, S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.9-116, SHANKHAVARAM VILLAGE
MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533446.
2. PARVATHA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O SOMMANNA DORA BABJI, AGED
ABOUT 40YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2-69, MAIN ROAD,
SHANKHAVARAM VILLAGE MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 533446.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. V V N NARAYANA RAO
2. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
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 & 2 in Crime No.199 of
2026 of Annavaram Police Station, East Godavari (Kakinada) District
registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 74, 329(3),
351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the
BNS’) and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for brevity,
‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’).
2. Notice contemplated under Section 15A(3) of ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ has
been duly served on the de‑facto complainant. There is no representation on
behalf of the Petitioner. As there is no representation for Respondent No.2,
Mr.A.Rama Krishna, learned Counsel, is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for
Respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is
directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioners, the learned legal Aid Counsel
for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused
the record.
4. Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits
that the Petitioners are Village Development Committee members. They had
lodged a complaint with the Tahsildar, Sankhavaram Mandal and also with the
3
Panchayat Secretary stating that the de‑facto complainant had raised an
unlawful construction by encroaching upon Gram Panchayat land.
Subsequently, apprehending false implication, the Petitioners lodged a
complaint that the de‑facto complainant might misuse the provisions of ‘the
SC/ST (POA) Act’ to foist false cases against them. Thereafter, the de‑facto
complainant lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, which was registered
as Crime No.199 of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
74, 329(3), 351(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(va) of ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’.
5. 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
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1
and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2.
6. 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:
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.
1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
2
(2023) 8 SCC 632
3
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
4b. 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.
7. 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, 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
5Superintendent 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Md.Asfak Alam supra, 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 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 full
cooperation in the ongoing investigation. The Investigating Officer shall
complete the investigation and file appropriate proceedings.
10. 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
6
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: 30.07.2026
PRA
7
35
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6129 of 2026
Date: 30.07.2026
PRA
