B.S. Bhanumathi, J.

1. s writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow in letter and spirit the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014:INSC:463 : (2014) 8 SCC 273 [LQ/SC/2014/671] also the guidelines prescribed by the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 132 of 2021 and provisions of Criminal Procedure Code pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner herein as any contrary would be violative of Articles 14, 21 and judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and grant any such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra PVG, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Smt. Y. L Sivakalpana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel for CID appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. The petitioner is a Member of Parliament elected from the Narsapuram Lok Sabha constituency situated in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. He is also a member of the YSR Congress Party which is currently in dispensation of power in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He states that the petitioner had a fall-out with the powers in the State of Andhra Pradesh after he became a vocal critic of some of its policies and administrative lapses in the state government, and therefore, he apprehends torture in the hands of the respondents under the garb of investigation in the wake of the past alleged similar acts against him. He further states that he has been receiving open threats continuously from several quarters and it became impossible for him to step into his own territorial constituency.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when similar apprehension was there for the petitioner in the past, vide orders, dated 29.06.2022, in W.P. No. 18652 of 2022, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents 1 to 4/police officials to follow due process of law in case, any cases are registered against the petitioner during his visit to Bhimavaram on 03.07.2022 and 04.07.2022. He further submitted that similar order may be passed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014:INSC:463 : (2014) 8 SCC 273, [LQ/SC/2014/671] which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as it is a preemptory order sought and the petition is premature and is based on assumptions and presumptions. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has discretionary authority under Section 41A CrPC either to issue notice or to arrest within the parameters set therein and it is not an absolute bar to arrest or it is not mandatory to issue notice in all cases which fall within the scope of Section 41A CrPC as held by this Court in Ummalaneni Madan Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 which has agreed with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in T.S. Emmanuvel; Helen Ida; Ponmoni Vs. Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Inspector of Police, Kazhiyakavilai Police Station, Marthandam 2016 Law Suit (Mad) 1170.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since number of cases about twelve (12) in number mentioned in the petition were foisted against the petitioner, there is substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that some more false cases may be foisted and he may be subjected to harassment and therefore, it is not a mere case of unfounded fear. With regard to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ummalaneni Madan Babu (3rd supra), the learned counsel submitted that the decision of the Division Bench shall be followed by this Bench of single Judge. He further submitted that the decision of the High Court of Madras has only persuasive value and it is not binding on this High Court. It is also stated by him that the prayer of the petitioner is also to follow the due process of law, which is enshrined in the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1 supra) and therefore, the same may not be rejected.

7. Before proceeding further on merits, Section 41A CrPC is excerpted herein below:

"1A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice."

8. In Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu (2nd supra), the following relief was sought:

"...seeking direction to the respondents not to foist cases on media personnel or social media users in a cavalier manner or sans concrete evidence corroborating the prima facie involvement of the alleged perpetrators in the crime; to direct the respondents to forthwith upload a copy of the First Information Report within 24 hours from the lodging of a report and further to direct them to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2014:INSC:463 : (2014) 8 SCC 273, [LQ/SC/2014/671] in all cases registered by them henceforth without fail."

The Division Bench, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (1 supra), held at paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 as follows:

6. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the following directions in paragraph 11:

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

"11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising 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 authorise detention;

11.5. 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;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC 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;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."

7. Since the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is already operative in the field, we reiterate the same and observe that the same shall be followed scrupulously in all sincerity by the police officers.

8. We direct all the Judicial Magistrates to record their satisfaction before authorizing detention, in exercise of powers under Section 167 Cr.P.C. While doing so, the Judicial Magistrates are expected to apply their mind objectively in the obtaining facts of the case and pass a reasoned order. Any negligence in this regard shall be viewed seriously and the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the High Court as and when such defective detention authorization orders are brought to the notice of the High Court by or on behalf of the accused."

9. In W.P. No. 18652 of 2022, the petitioner sought the following relief:

"This writ petition for a mandamus is filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide physical security to the petitioner and not to take any coercive action against him in any criminal case registered against him during his planned visit to Bhimavaram of West Godavari District on 03-07-2022 and 04-07-2022 to attend the 125th Birth Anniversary Celebrations of the legendary freedom fighter Sri Alluri Seetha Rama Raju which is being celebrated in the presence of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India."

10. After hearing both parties, the writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:

"9. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4-Police officials to follow the due process of law in case any cases are registered against the petitioner during his visit to Bhimavaram on 03-07-2022 and 04-07-2022."

11. In Ummalaneni Madan Babu (3rd supra), the learned single Judge of this Court concurred with the conclusion of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in T.S. Emmanuvel (4 supra) and by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (1 supra) held that the discretion to arrest or not to arrest a person and thereafter to follow 41A CrPC is solely vested in the Investigating Officer.

"This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents notices that there is no dispute about the fact that Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. applies to all cases irrespective of the Act, where the punishment is less than seven years. There is no dispute, in the opinion of this Court, about this proposition. Coming to the other submissions made, even in the case of Arnesh Kumar (3 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has spelt out the manner in which the power under Section 41 (1) (b) and 41-A of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. noted that in all cases where arrest of person is not actually required, the Police Officer should issue a notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. This Court concurs with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the discretion to arrest or not to arrest a person and thereafter to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is solely vested in the Investigating Officer. This Court cannot compel the police 6 to act on the basis of 41-A Cr.P.C. as a matter of right. The discretion, in the opinion of this Court, should be left to the officer concerned to arrest or not to arrest. Although, the cited judgment of Madras High Court is not binding on this Court, still it has a persuasive value. This Court agrees with the conclusion of the learned single Judge."

12. The above-referred decision of the Division Bench in Bollineni Rajgopal Naidu (2nd supra) was passed on 08.03.2022, whereas the decision by the Bench of single Judge was passed on 28.04.2020. However, there is no conflict between the decision in Ummalaneni Madan Babu (3rd supra) and the decision in Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu (2nd supra), and therefore, this Court concurs with the view of the learned single Judge taken in Ummalaneni Madan Babu (3rd supra).

13. In Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu (2nd supra) and in W.P. No. 18652 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, it was observed that there can be no general direction. In W.P. No. 18652 of 2022, a direction was given to the police officials to follow due process of law as noted above and in the case of Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu (3rd supra), the above noted directions were given to all the judicial Magistrates with regard to exercise of power under Section 167 CrPC while reiterating the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). As such, the settled law has been reiterated time and again and the same is to be followed without any violation.

14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.