Narra Aditya vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court disposed of the criminal petition by directing the Police to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The Court noted that the learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact that similar directions had been issued in other petitions. The Court emphasized that any deviation from these guidelines would be viewed seriously. The specific allegations regarding the petitioner's involvement in illegal sand transportation and cheating, and the quantum of sand involved, were not directly decided on merits in this order. The primary focus was on ensuring adherence to procedural safeguards before arrest. The operative direction was for the police to follow the established guidelines concerning arrest.

Facts

The petitioner, arrayed as A3, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 523 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 408 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that A1 was apprehended for illegal sand transportation. A1's confession implicated A2 (a GST holder) and the petitioner (A3), stating that A3 suggested booking private sand bulk orders using A2's GST. A9 allegedly uploaded GST for sanction of 15,000 MTs of sand bulk orders on fake delivery addresses and work orders. A2 sold 2900 MTs, and the petitioner (A3) sold 1450 MTs to A8, who then sold them to A5 and A6. The petitioner argued his name was not initially in the complaint and he was added based on assumptions. He also stated he had received a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and was cooperating with the inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 523 of 2020, considering the allegations of illegal sand transportation and cheating. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his name was not initially included in the complaint and was added subsequently based on assumptions and presumptions. He further contended that he had already received a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and was cooperating with the police inquiry, yet the police were attempting to arrest him. He relied on the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact that the Court had previously disposed of a batch of petitions directing the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case.