APHC010606462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11695/2025 Between: 1.KALLETI SAI RAM, R/O. 5/81, GANDLA STREET SULLURUPETA, SULLURUPETA MANDAL NELLORE -524121 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the state Public prosecutor, High Court of A P Amaravathi Varadaiahpalem PS , Thirupathi DFistrict. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.68 of 2025 of Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupathi District, 2 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 20(1)(d)(i), 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), 36 read with 32(A) Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 2016, Section 55(2) read with Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Section 3(1) of Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Sri Bodapati Vamsi Krishna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest 3 bail, there is a grave apprehension that Petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and there exists a real likelihood of him committing similar offences if released on bail. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. This Court in Crl.P.No.9767/2025 on 26.09.2025 dismissed the pre- arrest bail petition of the Petitioner/Accused No.7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are no similar adverse antecedents against the Petitioner. Therefore, the second pre-arrest bail petition may be allowed on the ground that the first bail application was dismissed as there was adverse criminal antecedents against the Petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, this Court on earlier occasion on 26.09.2025 dismissed the first pre-arrest bail application on the ground that there were specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. 9. Filing of successive pre-arrest bail petitions before the very same judge is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ananda Babu v. State of T.N1 and at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “6. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 4 status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.” 10. There are no merits in this case, and this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 to surrender before the competent Court and move an appropriate application for his release before the learned Jurisdictional Court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging him on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Judge may endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by affording due and sufficient opportunity to both sides and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks as far as possible. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.02.2026 VTS