Ankam Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

YADAMREDDY SIVAJI NAIDU ALIAS VASIREDDY SHIVAJI, S/O.Y.SATYANARAYANAAGED 42 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶14

POLISETTY NAGA SESHU, S/O.P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYAGED 71 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶15

BELLAMKONDA BALA YESU, S/O.B.SATNARAYANA,AGED 40 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

YADAMREDDY SURIBABU, S/O.Y.RAMA KRISHNAAGED 53 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶17

POLISETTI SATYANARAYANA, S/O.P.RADHA KRISHNA MURTHYAGED 48 YEARS, R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶18

TANNIDI SREENIVAS, S/O.T.MADHAVA RAOAGED 49 YEARS R/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST

¶19

2

¶20

GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶21

YADAMREDDY RAMA KRISHNA PEDDANNA VARA PRASAD, S/O.Y.PARAMESWARA RAO, AGED 60 YEARSR/O.KOPPARRU VILLAGENARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH

¶22

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶23

AND

¶24

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.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶27

1.VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI

¶28

2.VARSHITHA K

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶30

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER :

¶32

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’).

¶33

3

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶35

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 .

¶36

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:-

¶37

“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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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/ extraordinary circumstances.”

¶40

1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025.

¶41

2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc.

¶42

4

¶43

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra wherein at para No. 6 as under:

¶44

"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 appellantcomplainant as a party."

¶45

Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the

¶46

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 extraordinary 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.

¶47

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

¶48

5

¶49

BNSS.,’ in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar

¶50

v. State of Bihar³ and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand⁴ .

¶51

As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

¶52

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.

¶53

Central Bureau of Investigation⁵ , wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as

¶54

under:

¶55

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

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

Court in Arnesh Kumar supra , wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at

¶64

3(2014) 8 SCC 273

¶65

4(2023) 8 SCC 632

¶66

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

¶67

6

¶68

Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

¶69

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:

¶70

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.‟);

¶71

b) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

¶72

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;

¶73

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;

¶74

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;

¶75

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;

¶76

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.

¶77

h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

Md.Asfak Alam supra , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the

¶81

case of Arnesh Kumar .

¶82

7

¶83

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.

¶84

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

¶85

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.

¶86

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶87

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶88

Date: 10.07.2026 PRA

¶89

Whether the order is:

¶90

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶91

8