APHC010653742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12572/2025 Between: 1.GONAPATLA SEENA ALIAS GUNDLAMADUGU SREENIVASULU, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED 43 YEARSD.NO. 3-134, RAPTADU VILLAGE . MANDALANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 2.PEDDINTI JAGADEESH ALIAS GOLIAPALLI JAGADEESH, S/O PEDDINTI KRISHNAIAH, AGED 41 YEARSPRESS REPORTER OF ANDHRA PRABHA DAILY NEWS PAPER,RESIDING AT GOLIAPALLI VILLAGE .RAPTADU MANDAL,ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented throughPublic Prosecutor at High Court, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to 2 enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 9 on bail in Crime.No.76 of 2025 of Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 9 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 103(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence, they were falsely implicated in this case. They are the sole breadwinners of their families; they have got fixed abode. If some conditions are imposed, which this Court deem it fit, the Petitioners would abide by those conditions while enlarging them on bail and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail, submitting that the allegations against the Petitioners are grave and relate to a brutal double homicide arising out of a long-standing land dispute. It was argued that the deceased/Narayanareddy and his wife Mutyalamma were mercilessly attacked with sickles in broad daylight, resulting in one death on the spot and another while undergoing treatment, and that the Petitioners, though claiming to be a press reporters, are closely related to Accused No.3 and has been implicated for their active participation in the unlawful assembly. The learned Assistant Public 1 the BNS 3 Prosecutor further contended that the charge sheet has already been filed within the statutory period of 90 days, thereby ruling out any claim of default bail, and that this being the second bail application, no fresh grounds or change in circumstances have been demonstrated. Emphasizing the settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that successive bail applications cannot be entertained without material change in circumstances, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that enlarging the Petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the trial, embolden other accused. It was therefore prayed that the present bail application be dismissed. 5. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no merit in the second bail application filed by the Petitioners. The record clearly discloses that the alleged incident occurred on 17.05.2025 at 09:30 AM in Gangulakunta Village fields, Rapthadu Mandal, wherein the deceased/Narayanareddy and his wife Mutyalamma were brutally attacked with sickles by the accused persons, resulting in the death of Mutyalamma on the spot and Narayanareddy later at GGH Ananthapuramu. The complaint was lodged promptly at 01:30 PM on the same day, and investigation was taken up without delay. The prosecution has already completed investigation and filed the charge sheet within the statutory period of 90 days, thereby excluding the applicability of default bail under Section 187(3) of ‘the BNSS.’ It is further noted that this is the second bail application moved by the Petitioners, the earlier one having been dismissed on 11.11.2025 when investigation was still in progress. The settled principle of law is that 4 successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a substantial change in circumstances or new grounds which were not available earlier; mere repetition of grounds already considered is impermissible. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja2, 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.” 7. In the present case, on perusal of the record, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The allegations against the Petitioners, though they claim to be press reporters and related to accused No.3, are serious in nature, involving participation in a brutal attack leading to double homicide over a land dispute. The gravity of the offence, the manner of commission, and the fact that the charge sheet is already filed within 90 days, weigh heavily against the grant of bail. The Court therefore holds that the Petitioners have not made out any fresh grounds warranting reconsideration, and accordingly, the second bail application stands dismissed in the interests of justice. 8. For the above reasons, considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners, and the manner of commission, and the fact that the charge sheet is already filed within 90 days, there are no 2 (2005) 8 SCC 380 5 merits in this case at present. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.12.2025 VTS