Nandimandalam Nageswara Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

PANCHAGNULA RISHYENDRA SAI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Sri P.Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family: he is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be 3 available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record.

As seen from the record, the offence levelled against the petitioner- accused No. 1 is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of BihaH, wherein detailed guidelines issued at Para Nos. 11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below; 7. were 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).AH the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IRC 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..PC.’); b)AII 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..PC 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; ^(2014) 8 see 273

The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. AsfakAlam v. State of Jharkhand^, 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 Arnesh Kumar and Md. AsfakAlam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law but he shall follow the procedure prescribed Sections 41 and 41 (A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ (now Sections 35 B.N.S.S.2023'). The petitioner shall oblige to render his fullest the ongoing investigation. In the result, the Criminal Petition is under and 35 (3) of ‘the cooperation in 10. disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35 (3) of ‘the BNSSV41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C., and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and Md. AsfakAlam. ^(2023) 8 see 632 K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTR^STRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To,