1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.220 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 alleging that she married the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 on 17.01.2025 and further alleged that since the date of marriage, the Petitioner did not join her and used to maintain distance. The Petitioner demanded the parents of the Respondent No.2 for dowry of Rs. 15 lakhs and gold ornaments etc., and picked up quarrel. Basing on a complaint, the above crime was registered.

3. Heard Mr. Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre- arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the Petitioner is 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((2014) 8 SCC 273), 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 liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

                  h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

                  12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand((2023) 8 SCC 632), which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obligated to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam.