APHC010099202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2096/2025 Between: Goriparthi Veera Siva Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A1, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.333/2024 of Vuyyuru Police Station, Krishna District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable u/Sec.126(2), 118(1), 74 r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the de facto complainant along with her family members was living by attending agricultural works; that five days prior to 04.12.2024, one Goriparthi Venkateswara Rao 2 drove his tractor over the paddy, which was placed on the vacant land road margin for drying and when the elder son of de facto complainant questioned the said act, one Goriparthi Venkata Krishna Rao abused him and threatened him with dire consequences; that on 03.12.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. the younger son of the de facto complainant returned from Tirupathi and while she was narrating the incident to his younger son, accused No.2 came to her house with an axe and targeted her husband and two sons, however, the situation was averted by the wife of accused No.2; that after lodging report to police, while the de facto complainant while returning home, around 1.00 a.m. near Mango Trees, about 15 unidentified persons came on bikes, restrained the de facto complainant and her family members, attacked them, and the driver of the tractor viz. Goriparthi Sambasiva Rao along with one Sasidhar and K.Jhony rescued them and took them to the Government Hospital. The case was reported to police and a case in Crime No.333 of 2024 of Vuyyuru Police Station was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that this is the second bail application and the previous anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 12.02.2025 vide Crl.P.No.1198 of 2025 and prays to allow the criminal petition. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the previous anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 12.02.2025 vide Crl.P.No.1198 of 2025 and there are no changed circumstances from previous bail application to this application and prays to dismiss the same. 8. It is the second anticipatory bail application. As seen from the averments, except reiteration of the earlier contentions in the bail petition, no other contention has been raised. Learned Assistant Public 3 Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation, offences under Section 118(1) and 126(2) of B.N.S are altered. 9. 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. 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 1 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 2 (2005) 2 SCC 42 4 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dated: 07.4.2025 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2096 of 2025 Dated: 07.4.2025 RD