APHC010652922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12527/2025 Between: KATTULA ALIAS PAMALLA PANDAIAH, S/O LATE PALAMALLA NARAYANAPPA,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 401,B.C COLONY, RAPTHADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,Through Station House Officer Rapthadu Police Station,Ananthapuramu district. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.76 of 2025 of Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapuram District, was registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109, 103 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Ms.Ayesha Azma, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there are long-standing civil disputes 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 between the families of the two groups, which have given rise to animosity and multiple litigations. It is pointed out that Accused Nos.1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 have already been enlarged on bail. There is also a counter-case registered in Crime No.77 of 2025, wherein grievous injuries were caused to the de-facto complainant and his sister. It is further highlighted that Accused No.6 is none other than the mother of the de-facto complainant, which demonstrates the deep-rooted family disputes underlying the present case. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting bail, the Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the Petitioner is the aggressor who trespassed into the land of the deceased and committed a brutal double murder. It is further submitted that Accused No. 2 was present at the scene of offence, thereby establishing the active participation of the accused group. The prosecution apprehends that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the offence, and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, the learned Assistant 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and urges that the bail petition be dismissed. 5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel, as well as upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident from the record that the alleged incident occurred on 17.05.2025 at about 09:30 AM in the agricultural fields of Gangulakunta Village, Rapthadu Mandal, wherein the deceased, Narayanareddy, and his wife, Mutyalamma, were subjected to a brutal assault with sickles by the accused persons. The attack resulted in the instantaneous death of Mutyalamma and the subsequent demise of Narayanareddy while undergoing treatment at GGH, Ananthapuramu. The complaint was lodged promptly at 01:30 PM on the same day, and the investigation was taken up without delay. 6. The prosecution has since completed the 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 filed by the Petitioner, the earlier one having been dismissed on 11.11.2025 when the investigation was still in progress. The settled principle of law is that successive bail applications are maintainable only upon demonstration of substantial change in circumstances or availability of new grounds which were not considered earlier. Mere repetition of grounds already adjudicated is impermissible. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja1, 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.” 8. In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to establish any change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The allegations against the Petitioner are grave in nature, involving active participation in a double homicide arising out of a land dispute. The gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, weigh heavily against the grant of bail. This Court is also mindful of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that release of the Petitioner at this stage may result in intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of the course of justice. The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the potential threat to the fair progress of trial, militates against the exercise of discretion in favour of the Petitioner. 9. This Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 in Crl.P.No.12572 of 2025 dismissed the bail application filed by Accused Nos.3 & 9 on the ground that the accusation against them is well founded. 1 (2005) 8 SCC 380 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 10. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present bail application. The Petitioner has not made out any fresh grounds warranting reconsideration. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 02.01.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12527 of 2025 Dated 02.01.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12527 OF 2025 02.01.2026 RSI