APHC010588512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9525/2024 Between: Biyyala Appala Naidu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This is the second criminal petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.73 of 2023 of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, „the NDPS Act‟). 3. Heard. Perused the record. 2 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the respondent/Police could not recover any kind of said substance or anything else of narcotic nature from the petitioner based on the alleged extra-judicial confessional statements of the co-accused pertaining to said alleged incident the crime is registered against the petitioner/A.1. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes granting bail because the previous bail petition was dismissed against the petitioner/A.1 vide order dated 07.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.1884 of 2024. He further submits that the investigation is not completed and there are four other cases pending against the petitioner/A.1. 6. As seen from the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an anticipatory bail application vide Crl.P.No.1884 of 2024, which this Court dismissed the bail application following thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties. Upon perusal of the order dated 07.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.1884 of 2024, it is manifest that the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner is against the society, and thus, considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner therein. 7. In so far as the seizure of ganja is concerned, a perusal of the material shows that the Police found 120 ganja packets weighing approximately 240 Kgs, valued at Rs.48,00,000/- and seized the ganja packets, five cell phones, Bolero vehicle and the Innova car under the cover of mahazarnama. Previously, this Court considered the serious nature of the accusations against the Petitioner and dismissed the petition. The contentions raised by the Petitioner in this regard were already considered in the previous bail application, and hence, they do not deserve fresh consideration. Each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that others were released on regular bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in 3 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. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of 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." 9. 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.” 10. Following the rulings mentioned above, 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 any change in circumstances, and based on the information provided by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who confirms that the investigation regarding the petitioner/A.1 remains incomplete, and that A.2 is still absconding, coupled with the fact that four other cases are pending against the petitioner/A.1, this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner's second anticipatory bail application. 1 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 2 (2005) 2 SCC 42 4 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 06.01.2025 MS 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRL.P.NO.9525 of 2024 Date: 06.01.2025 MS