logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 336 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7803 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Parties : Mudavath Lakshmi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Anantha Chary Kurella, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 15-05-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 - Sections 331(4) & 305 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’)
- Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)

2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 35(3) procedure
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail for alleged offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS. He contended that the charges were baseless, relying solely on another accused’s confession, and that the investigating officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The public prosecutor asserted compliance with the said procedure and guidelines. The Court examined the submissions and noted that the offences attracted imprisonment of less than seven years, mandating adherence to Section 35(3) and the Supreme Court’s guidelines. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigating officer, who must strictly follow the prescribed procedure. The criminal petition was disposed of, and any pending miscellaneous applications were ordered to stand closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.7 in Crime No.14 of 2026 of Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy District, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7 for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Sri K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel representing Sri Anantha Chary Kurella, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confession statement of the other accused, and that the alleged material was seized from the other accused. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner.

4. He further submitted that the offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer will strictly follow the due procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is entitled to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal