1 APHC010298962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6205/2025 Between: Dadi Thrinad Alias Prasad And Another and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. CHAKRADHARA RAJA Y Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court Made the Following Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.14 of 2025 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 14.01.2025 at about 11 p.m., a tussle took place between the defacto complainant’s brother and A1. 2 After knowing about the incident, the defacto complainant went to the scene of offence and noticed that A1 and A2 and others were attempted to stab and beat his brother. While trying to rescue his brother, the defacto complainant also sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that previously, the petitioners and others filed anticipatory bail application viz., Crl.P.No.5763 of 2025, and the same was dismissed in respect of the petitioners herein by this Court on 05.06.2025. He further submits that the petitioners herein are no way connected with the offence alleged and therefore, he respectfully prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. 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. 6. In Rakesh Baban Borhade V. State of Maharashtra and another1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that: “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”. 1 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 3 7. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there are specific allegations were made against the petitioners herein that they beat the defacto complainant and his brother and caused bleeding injuries. 8. All the contentions raised by the petitioners 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 petitioners 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. 9. 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. 10. As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners. 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. 11. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao2, wherein it is held that: 2 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 4 “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.” 12. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan3, 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.” 13. As noted in the aforementioned decisions, in successive petitions, the petitioners 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. 14. 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 Petitioners’ second anticipatory bail application. 3 (2005) 2 SCC 42 5 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 08.07.2025 ASR 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6205 of 2025 Date: 08.07.2025 ASR