1 APHC010228732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4922/2025 Between: Gudibanda Karthik, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This is the 2nd Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) [previously filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973], seeking anticipatory bail to Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.645/2025 of Raychoty Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2 78(2), 69, 115(2), 89, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V)(va) of SC, ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and A1 are working as Amenity Secretaries in Sachivalayam Nos.1 and 16 respectively, of Rayachoty Municipality, and they got acquaintance with each other. It is alleged that A1, by promising to marry the de facto complainant, had physical contact with her several times. When she became pregnant, A1 introduced his brother A2, who gave tablets to her. Trusting the words of A1 that he would marry her, she took the tablets. Later, her pregnancy was removed. When she asked A1 to marry her, he postponed it. On 02.12.2024, A1 called her to Jagan Anna Housing Colony, Narayanareddygaripalli, Rayachoty Mandal, where he abused her in filthy language, beat her and raped her without her consent. On 03.12.2024, at about 08.00 PM, she went to the said Colony to talk about the marriage and at that time A1 and A3 tried to convince her. A3 threatened her with dire consequences. On 14.12.2024, she met A4, the father of A1, and informed him about what happened and requested him to do justice. But, he refused to perform marriage between her and A1. Subsequently, A5, the uncle of A1, came to her house and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence the complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State. 3 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s previous bail application vide Crl.P.No.2166 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court on 27.3.2025. Hence, the 2nd bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 as there is change of circumstances. Hence, prayed to consider this Criminal Petition. 5. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner disputing the above fact that the investigation is not yet completed and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. As per the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Criminal Petition No. 2166 of 2025. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both counsel, dismissed the application on 27.3.2025. The 2nd bail application filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 as there is change of circumstances and this Court is of the view that there is no change of circumstances. 7. 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. 8. As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the Petitioner. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of 4 the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao1, wherein it is held that: “7. xxx In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. xxx Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.” In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “20. Xxx Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.” 9. By following the aforementioned rulings, it is clear that unless there is a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or, if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the Petitioner’s second anticipatory bail application. 1 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 2 (2005) 2 SCC 42 5 10. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J 09.5.2025 RD/TJN 6 59 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4922 OF 2025 09.5.2025 RD/TJN