APHC010088542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: Setty Pavankumar @ Pavan The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KARRE SATYANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following This is the 2nd Criminal Petition, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No. Visakhapatnam Commissionerate under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c), 25 of th Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1903 OF 2025 Setty Pavankumar @ Pavan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KARRE SATYANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Court made the following ORDER: 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 in Crime No.741 of 2023 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c), 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPSA’). IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT under Section 482 of the Bharatiya previously filed under , seeking anticipatory bail to Police Station, , registered for the offences punishable Narcotic Drugs and 2 2. The Prosecution's case, in summary, asserts that on 12.12.2023, at about 09.00 hours, on credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Anna Canteen Junction, Autonagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, and conducted vehicle checking. They found two persons trying to flee from the area, upon seeing the police. Then police apprehended them and on interrogation, they disclosed their identity particulars as that of A1 and A2. Police found 22 kgs of ganja in their possession. The contraband was seized under cover of a mediators report. Police arrested A1 and A2 on the same day and got remanded to judicial custody. On their confession, the names of A3 to A5 were added in the F.I.R and the petitioner is A4. 3. Heard Sri K.Satyanandam, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A4 and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated, with no evidence against him. The main culprits are A1 and A2 and on their confession, the name of the petitioner was added in the F.I.R and no contraband was seized from his possession and also no material produced by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the crime. The Petitioner’s previous bail application (Crl.P.No.8305 of 2024) was dismissed by this Court on 02.12.2024. Hence, prayed to consider this bail application. 3 5. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 6. As per the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Criminal Petition No. 8305 of 2024. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both counsel, dismissed the application on 02.12.2024. 7. 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 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 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 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.” 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 1 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 2 (2005) 2 SCC 42 4 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.” 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. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J 19.3.2025 RD/TJN 5 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1903 OF 2025 19.3.2025 RD/TJN