1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3940 of 2025 Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking bail in Crime No.65 of 2025 of Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/Sec.65(1) of B.N.S and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused developed acquaintance with the victim minor girl, aged about 14 years, as he is relative of her father. About 4 years back, parents of the victim girl took divorce and the victim girl is residing along with her mother. The victim girl and her brother used to visit the house of her father. On 05.02.2025, the victim girl informed to her mother that on 20.01.2025, the accused came to their house and taking advantage of her loneliness in the house, he committed penetrative sexual assault against her. In this connection, this case was registered and during the course of investigation, arrested the accused on 07.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that previously, he filed bail application viz., Crl.P.No.2837 of 2025, and the same was dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 07.02.2025; since then, he has languished in jail. He further submits that most 2 of the investigation in the present crime is completed Therefore, he respectfully prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 7. As seen from the record, the Defacto Complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 14 years of age. It is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed on the victim girl taking advantage of her loneliness in the house. 8. All the contentions raised by the petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserts that the investigation in the present crime is at crucial stage and the release of the petitioner at this stage, may cause threatening of victim girl. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2025, enduring significant mental anguish and stress throughout the past two months of judicial remand. The petitioner vehemently denies the 3 Prosecution’s case, asserting that the charges are false, fabricated, and driven by ulterior motives. 10. In the previous bail order, in Crl.P.No.2837 of 2025, this Court noted that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, there is every chance of threatening the victim girl. Apart from a mere reiteration of arguments presented in the earlier bail application, this current application does not introduce any new contentions that would indicate a significant change in the circumstances of the case. 11. As already noted, this is the second regular bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled in law that successive bail applications cannot be entertained unless there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of the case. 12. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision in Rahul Malik vs. State of Himachal Pradesh1, wherein the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that: Needless to say that after dismissal of a bail petition, the bail petitioner, in a succeeding petition, has to successfully show before the Court, the change in the circumstances. It is well settled that the accused has a right to maintain successive bail petitions under changed circumstances and the change in the circumstances must be substantial having direct and consequential impact on the previous decision, whereby the bail was denied. The change(s) in the circumstances must not be trivial or cosmetic 1 MANU/HP/1377/2020 4 having no significance or of little or no consequence. It is also well settled that without substantial change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail petition would be merely review sought to the earlier petition, which was rejected, and such review is not permissible under the law. It is the duty of the Court to consider all the reasons and grounds whereupon the earlier bail petition was rejected and what are the fresh grounds worth consideration and ultimately warranting evaluation of fresh bail petition and leading the Court to take a divergent view from that of the earlier view rejecting the petition. There must be change in fact situation or in law, compelling the Court to take different view. Thus, the Court has a narrow area to reconsider the successive bail petition and this narrow area is only change in circumstances. 13. In Jogia @ Jogendra Jena Vs. State of Odisha2, the High Court of Orissa held that: "Successive bail applications are maintainable but there has to be material change in the fact situation and not mere cosmetic change. Successive bail application on the same grounds which were available to the accused at the time of consideration of the earlier bail application would not be maintainable. Neither a ground that the earlier bail application was not properly placed by the previously engaged counsel can be entertained." 14. As noted in the aforementioned decisions, in successive petitions, the petitioner must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that directly impacts the prior denial of bail. In absence of such a substantial change, a subsequent bail application amounts to a mere review of the earlier petition. 2 MANU/OR/0450/2017 5 15. The material on record indicates that there have been no changes in the circumstances since the previous bail application. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the Petitioner’s second regular bail application. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 25.04.2025 ASR 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3940 of 2025 Date: 25.04.2025 ASR