Court emphasized adherence to legal standards for arrest and bail, maintaining that procedural compliance is necessary to protect the rights of the accused.

Criminal Petition has been fifed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.53 of 2025 on the file of Gummagatta Police Station Ananthapuramu District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section s 329 (3), 324(4), 115(2), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2025 at 10:00 a.m., at the fields of the complainant, and reported on the same day at 03:00 p.m., the accused Kamalamma and Suvarnamma criminally trespassed into the complainant's pomegranate garden and damaged the pomegranate plants. Subsequently, the accused Kamalamma along with seven others, with a common intention, picked up a quarrel and assaulted the complainant and his relatives, Eswar Reddy, Ranga Reddy, and Ananthamma, using sticks, hands, and legs, causing bleeding and blunt injuries. The injured were shifted to Government Area Hospital, Rayadurgam for treatment. Based on the statement of Meti Hanumantha Reddy, a case was registered. The incident is stated to have arisen out of a land dispute (rastha dispute) between the parties.

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7832 of2025 Dated 04.08.2025

3. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are sole bread winners of their family; they are ready abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8.

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

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

6. As seen from the record, the offences leveled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

7. 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 '(2014) 8 see 273 .m ■ 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7832of2025 Dated 04.08.2Q25 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 (forbrevity ‘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 sat