APHC010365842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5882/2026 Between: 1. BIKSHAPATHI ALIAS PONNAM BUCHAIAH, S/O. PONNAM MONDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-44, KUNDAMPALLI,CHITYALA MANDAL, VARANGAL DISTRICT, TELENGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.PAmaravathi, Through Station House Officer,Mudivedu Police Station,Chittoor. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026 of Mudivedu Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 179, 180, 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr.N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the charge sheet has already been filed showing the Petitioner as absconding. He contends that there are no specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner. The Petitioner could not surrender before the concerned Court as per the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 08.04.2026 in Crl.P.No.2491 of 2026, as he has been suffering from severe health problems. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 have already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court. The Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting pre‑arrest bail and, therefore, urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the Petitioner had indulged in the exchange of fake currency notes. The 3 allegations are severe in nature. Charge sheet has been filed. As the accusation is well‑founded, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. As seen from the record, this is the second pre‑arrest bail application filed by the Petitioner. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 08.04.2026 in Crl.P.No.2491 of 2026, dismissed the first anticipatory bail application filed by the Petitioner. However, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within one week. 6. This Court refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand1, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. In view of the law laid down in Om Prakash Chhawnika supra, the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be entertained. 7. In this regard, it is also apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu2, wherein, at paragraph No. 6, it was 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 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. 8. Thus, in G.R.Ananda Babu supra, it was held that successive anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676 2 (2021) 16 SCC 725 4 absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. A mere change in circumstances is not a valid ground once an earlier application has been rejected by a reasoned order. In the present case, the charge sheet has already been filed and the accusations are well‑founded. The plea that the Petitioner is suffering from back pain is of no significance, as his ill‑health is not alarming. The Petitioner is about 50 years of age, and the medical certificate issued by the concerned doctor does not disclose any severe abnormalities. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.07.2026 PRA 5 95 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5882 of 2026 Date:28.07.2026 PRA