Bandla Raja Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bandla Raja Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of: Investigating Officer directed to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS / Section 41-A CrPC and to strictly follow the directions in Satender Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam; petitioners to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation; liberty reserved to the investigating officer to proceed per law if any offence punishable beyond seven years surfaces; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. Proceedings in Cr.No.27 of 2026 were NOT quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Cr.No.27 of 2026 (Edlapadu Police Station, Palnadu District) against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) BNS 2023 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

There exists a prima facie case to consider the petitioners' quashing request under Section 528 BNSS; however, the circumstances necessitate a thorough and comprehensive investigation and the voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be stifled at the threshold.

Ratio / Principle

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 Satender Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam.

Key takeaways

The investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law but must follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) CrPC (now Sections 35 and 35(3) BNSS); the petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.ratio¶69
If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the petitioners have committed any offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.1151 of 2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao), decided 12.02.2026 — Seven petitioners/accused sought quashing under S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS of proceedings in Cr.No.27 of 2026, Edlapadu Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for offences under Ss.115(2), 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — parties of the same political party with internal rivalries; petitioners allegedly beat the de-facto complainant with sticks causing bleeding injuries; wound certificate awaited; all offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years. Court held a prima facie case existed to consider the quashing request but declined to stifle the de-facto complainant at the threshold. Petition disposed of: Investigating Officer directed to comply with S.35(3) BNSS / S.41-A CrPC and strictly follow directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand; petitioners to cooperate fully; liberty to proceed per law if any offence punishable beyond seven years is noticed. Miscellaneous petitions closed. FIR not quashed; investigation to continue subject to notice-based procedure.

[3521]

APHC010074252026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1151/2026

Between:

BANDLA RAJA SEKHAR, BANDLA RAJA SEKHAR, S/O. ADIYYA,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,R/O. DOOR NO. 2-55-2, KOTHURU,EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDAL,PALNADU DISTRICT 522233

BANDLA SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O. BHUSHAIAH,AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,R/O. DOOR NO. 7-275-1, EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233

MARELLA SURENDRA, , S/O. SIVANJANEYULU,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 3-29, EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233

RACHAMANTI CHINTHA RAO, S/O. SAMBA SIVA RAO,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,R/O. DOOR NO. 7-329-2, NEAR NTR BOMMA,EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233

KARNATI SUBBA RAO, , S/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,R/O. DOOR NO. 2-65, KOTHURU,EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233.

BANDLA RAMARAO, , S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 2-72, RAMANAIAHPETA, KOTHURU,EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233

BANDLA MARELLA SREESHA, W/O. NAGARJUNA,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 7-344, SBI ATM BACK SIDE,EDLAPADU

2

VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT 522233

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI,THROUGH S.H.O, EDLAPADU PS,PALNADU DISTRICT - 522239

ANKAM SRINU, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O. EDLAPADU VILLAGE MANDALPALNADU DISTRICT - 522233

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY

2.K DIVAKARA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

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 quash proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 in Cr.No.27 of 2026 on the file of the Edlapadu Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3

As seen from the record, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2/De-facto complainant belong to the same political party. There are internal rivalries between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. The allegation against the Petitioners by Respondent No.2 is that the Petitioners beat him with sticks, causing bleeding injuries. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the wound certificate is awaited. As of now, all the alleged offences against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

Therefore, there exists a prima facie case to consider the request of the Petitioner under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’. Nonetheless, the circumstances of the case necessitate a thorough and comprehensive investigation. The voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be stifled at the threshold.

Indeed, 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.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central

Bureau of Investigation¹ , wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as under:

33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows:

1 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026

4

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.

However, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar² , 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);

2(2014) 8 SCC 273

5

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.

The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand³ , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar .

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

3(2023) 8 SCC 632

6

35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

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: 12.02.2026 PRA

7

188

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1151 of 2026

Date: 12.02.2026

PRA