Akula Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Akula Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Criminal Petition was disposed of without adjudicating anticipatory bail, with the following directions: (a) the Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation in accordance with law; (b) in the event of any coercive action against the Petitioners, police authorities must scrupulously follow the Section 35(3) BNSS procedure and the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar guidelines (reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another); pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, since the offences alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.299 of 2025 are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the police should follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS (rather than take coercive action) when dealing with the Petitioners.

Court's answer

In the event of any coercive action being sought to be taken against the Petitioners, the concerned Police Authorities were directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS together with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which are reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another; the direction proceeds on the position that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, as conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor.

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Section 482 BNSS petition by Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.299 of 2025 (Pedapadu Police Station, Eluru District; offences under S.85 read with 3(5) BNS 2023 and Ss.3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) — alleged offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years — counsel requested that police follow the Section 35(3) BNSS procedure, a course fairly conceded by the Public Prosecutor — Criminal Petition disposed of: Investigating Officer left at liberty to complete the investigation in accordance with law, and, in the event of any coercive action, police directed to scrupulously follow Section 35(3) BNSS and the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another, 2026 INSC 115 — pending applications closed. (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 09.03.2026.)

[3396]

APHC010106332026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1662/2026

Between:

AKULA NARESH, S/O. AKULA RAJA RAO,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN AIR FORCE,R/O. D.NO.22, DC-4, AMBATTUR,TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

AKULA RAJA RAO, S/O. RAMULU,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.22DC-4, I.A.F., AMBATTUR,TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

AKULA SRIDEVI, W/O. RAJA RAO,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE,R/O. D.NO.22, DC-4, MUTHAPUDUPETA,AMBATTUR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

AKULA RAJESH, S/O. AKULA RAJA RAO,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,D.NO.1-20, M.K.NAGAR, MUTHAPUDUPETA,AMBATTUR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

AKULA RAJESWARI, D/O. RAJA RAO CHINTHAPALLI RAMAAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.22, DC-3,MUTHAPUDUPETA, AMBATTUR,TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, NAMIL NADU.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAMARAVATI.

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDAPADU POLICE STATION,PEDAPADU,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.B MURALI MOHAN

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.299 of 2025 on the file of Pedapadu Police Station, Eluru District for the offences under Sections 85

2

read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Sri B.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the offences alleged against the Petitioners are punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment and Police may be directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded the same and would submit that a direction may be given to the Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS Act since the offences are punishable with an imprisonment of below seven years.

4. Considering the submissions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following;

a. Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law.

b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the Petitioners, concerned Police Authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ , which is reiterated in in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another² .

Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:09.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C today B/o. Dinesh

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

2 2026 INSC 115

3

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.1662 of 2026

Dt.09.03.2026

Dinesh