APHC010644292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12388/2025 Between: VANUM DURGA PRASAD, S/O. SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-163,GANDREDU VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL,KAKINADA DISTRICT ERST WHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, S.H.O., Gangaraju Police Station,G.Madugula, Alluri Sitharamaraju District,rep. by its Public Prosecutor At High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravthi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.36 of 2025 of Gangaraju Police Station, ASR District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court in Crl.P.No.11109 of 2025, vide order dated 06.11.2025. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no change in circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application till the filing of the present bail application. The petitioner was arrested on 06.09.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 114 days. The petitioner has not completed the statutory period of 180 days in judicial custody for grant of default bail. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja1, at paragraph No.9 held as under: “9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan2, at paragraph Nos.12 & 20 held as under: “12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] .) 20. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the impugned order we do not see any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into consideration that at least on four occasions order refusing bail has been affirmed by this Court and subsequently when the High Court did grant bail, this Court by its order dated 26-7-2000 cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order. From the impugned order, we do not notice any indication of the fact that the High Court took note of the grounds which persuaded this Court to cancel the bail. Such approach of the High Court, in our opinion, is violative of the principle of binding nature of judgments of the superior court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and in effect tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective the principles enunciated therein which have a binding character.” 1(2005) 8 SCC 380 2(2004) 7 SCC 528 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad3, at paragraph No.8 held as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (2001) 1 SCC 169 and various other judgments.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra4, at paragraph No.30 held as under: “30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.” 8. This Court dismissed the first bail application on the ground that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with a commercial quantity of ganja and that the investigation was not completed. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had not committed any offence and that, if the petitioner were enlarged on bail, he would not commit any offence. 9. There is no change in the circumstances from the date of dismissal of the first bail application till the date of filing of the present bail application. This second bail application cannot be entertained within a short span of time, as no valid grounds are raised for the grant of bail albeit the principle of res judicata would not be applicable to bail applications. Entertaining repeated 3(2001) 7 SCC 673 4(2018) 11 SCC 458 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would not only lead to bad precedents but also create judicial indiscipline and also create unnecessary hurdle to the progress of the investigation and also the victims of crime as they are required to oppose the applications for every time. 10. The onus is on the petitioner to establish that there is any major change of circumstances in filing the second bail application, namely, that there is substantial progress in the investigation, or that the investigation has been completed, or that a charge sheet has been filed, or that some critical event has taken place in the life of the petitioner/accused. No doubt, the petitioner has a right to file successive bail applications for grant of bail, but this Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier application was rejected. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4 at this juncture. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.12.2025 RSI/PRA 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025 Dated 29.12.2025 56 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12388 of 2025 Date: 29.12.2025 RSI/PRA