IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT * O THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4492 OF 2025 Between: Bollada Panduranga Rao @ Paandu, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 52 years, Male, R/o.D.No. 1-133, Karravarisavaram, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory bail Petitioner/Accused No.2 in connection with the Crime No.24 of 2025 of to the Undrajavaram P.S., East Godavari District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri .Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and PMsecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent the Public The Court made the following Order: 1 m IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE APHC010213022025 [3369] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4492 OF 2025 Between: Bollada Panduranga Rao @ Paandu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: nd This is the 2 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.2 in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Undrajavaram Police Station, East Godavari, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. ^ 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 26.01.2025, at about 7:25 p.m., at Bollaavari Centre, K.Savaram Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, the defacto complainant filed a complaint stating that while his farm servant was cutting green grass and bringing it to the house, A1 abused him in vulgar language when he was informed the same. Later, the complainant asked A1 about the abuse, and they had a dispute with each other. A1 beat him hands and kicked him with his legs. Meanwhile, A2 arrived with a knife and struck the complainant on his head with his causing injury. Later, the complainant's cousin arrived and shifted him to the Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment. Hence, the police registered the crime against A1 and A2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s previous bail application (Crl.P.No.2105 of 2025) was dismissed by this Court on 24.03.2025. Hence, the 2""' bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 as there is change of circumstances i.e.. discharge of the injured from the hospital and also submits that investigation is completed. Hence, prayed to consider this Criminal Petition. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. As per the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Criminal Petition No. 2105 of 2025. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both dismissed the application on 24.03.2025. The 2^^ bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 stating that 6. counsel there is 3 change of circumstances i.e., discharge of the injured from the hospital and this Court is of the view that it cannot be taken as change of circumstances. 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 7. the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated. 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao\ wherein it is held that: 8. “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. ” X In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan\ 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. ” ' 1989 Supp{2) see 605 ^ (2005) 2 see 42 4 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. 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. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. 10. 11. in this Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Station House Officer, Undrajavaram Police station. East Godavari District 2. One CC to Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies MV vna HIGH COURT DATED: 05/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4492 of 2025 g( 0 7 AUG 2025 ^^sCuirent Co ^5^ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION