Pre-arrest bail is granted under specific statutory provisions ensuring police compliance with procedural guidelines when offenses carry less than seven years of imprisonment.

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [the BNSS] by the Petitioner/Accused for grant of pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No.123 of 2025 on the file of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 5, 8 read with 11(1) Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997, [the Act]

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

3. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had prepared certain answers to the questions at a place other than the examination centre, and those answers prepared by the petitioner were circulated to the candidates appearing for the examination. The provisions under Section 316 (5) of ‘the BNS.,’ would not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner is not an employee of ABZ Arowana Digital Zone, Visakhapatnam, where the examinations were conducted. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997, in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to the benefit Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

4. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’ and Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C’. The offences alleged against the Petitioner/Accused are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

5. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 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:

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