Single judge disposed of Criminal Petition No. 7716/2026 seeking pre-arrest bail for alleged offence under Section 305(a) BNS. Court directed investigating officer to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS and Supreme Court guidelines before arrest in offences punishable up to seven years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
APHC010462172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3521]
THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7716/2026
Between:
MANDAPATI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O LATE MANDAPATI ANANDA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, FIRE DEPARTMENT,R/O VENKATAPALEM VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
ARUN KUMAR R
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.263 of 2026 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
1(2014) 8 SCC 273
2(2023) 8 SCC 632
3
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
5. 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.
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.
6. 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:
3 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
4
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
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.
Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam , the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the
5
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
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 petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 10.09.2026 RSI
6
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7716 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
26
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7716 of 2026
Date: 10.09.2026
RSI
3 issues framed by the court
Whether police must issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS for offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment.
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted under Section 35(3) of BNSS based on Supreme Court guidelines.
Whether investigating officer must follow statutory procedure before arresting accused in less serious offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharExplained¶28
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of JharkhandExplained¶28
(2023) 8 SCC 632 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of InvestigationExplained¶34
SLP (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021
Mentioned in Arnesh KumarReferred¶48
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Mentioned in Arnesh KumarReferred¶58
Dowry Prohibition Act
4 provisions across 3 enactments
MANDAPATI KOTESWARA RAO
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
