MUDDAGONI PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) Petitioner is shown as accused in Crime No.386 of 2019 on the file of Keesara Police Station. Apprehending that petitioner would be arrested in connection with the said crime, he filed Crl.MP.No.255 of 2020 in the Court of XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. Learned Judge, by order dated 24.11.2020, observed that as the offences alleged against the petitioner may result in imposing sentence of less than seven years, the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be arrested is not valid. However, having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, instead of granting anticipatory bail, the Court observed that it is a fit case to give direction to the police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. scrupulously. On 29.12.2020, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear before the undersigned for the purpose of investigation. On 30.12.2020, petitioner responded to the said notice by written explanation on the allegations levelled in the crime reported to the police and noted in the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

(3.) This writ petition is filed alleging that the police are not following the entire gamut of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and they are now seeking to arrest the petitioner and therefore seeks a direction to the police not to arrest the petitioner.