APHC010356522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5741/2026 Between: 1. LINGAM JOSHI SAI JASWANTH, S/O. LINGAM KUMAR VIJAY PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. 83-8/2BHEEMUNI GUMMAM STREET,ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh.Amaravati,GunturDistrict. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K A NARASIMHAM 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.39 of 2024 of Special Enforcement Burearu, Anakapalli, 2 Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. This Court in Crl.P.No.4439/2026 on 15.06.2026 dismissed the pre- arrest bail application on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. It was mentioned that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain for what purpose the Petitioner had indulged in procuring huge quantities of liquor bottles from Accused No.1. Thus, it was mentioned that custodial interrogation was required. The Petitioner with another advocate got filed this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail. 4. Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein at Para No.39 it is held as under: “39. The High Court has its own understanding of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It says that what is admissible under Section 30 can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail. However, we are not impressed with the view expressed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that such a confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail for the following reasons:— (i) Before a confession is taken into consideration against a co- accused, the said confession has to be duly proved against the maker. It has to be clearly established that such confession is not vitiated either by Section 24 of the Evidence Act nor rendered inadmissible by Section 25 thereof, which can only be ascertained in the course of trial. It must be clearly established by leading cogent evidence in the course of the trial before the case for the prosecution comes to an end. [See : Dipak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547]. When confession is made before police 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1157 3 official, the same cannot be proved in evidence at all. Statement contemplated under section 30 should be relevant and admissible, and that is the foremost requirement of section and sine qua non. (ii) Section 30 of Evidence Act postulates that such a confession can be taken into consideration only where the accused persons are jointly tried. The said provision does not merely require that the persons must be accused of the same offence, but rather requires that they must be being tried jointly for the said offence. [See : Queen Empress v. Jagat Chandra Mali, ILR (1894) 22 Cal 50; Naresh v. R, AIR 1938 Cal 479]. Joint trial here refers to the one provided under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). Thus, where the accused persons are either not being tried jointly, or are yet to be charged for the same offence and thereafter tried together, Section 30 of the Evidence Act would be inapplicable. [See : Badri Prasad Prajapati v. State of M.P., 2005 Cri LJ 1856]. Thus, Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial, and any confession admissible thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by the courts. (iii) Assuming for a moment that such a confession can be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail, as per Kashmira Singh (supra), such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused. Thus, there must exist other evidence on record, before the court looks into such confession.” 5. Whether the prosecution has relied solely on the co-accused confession or any other material is available to incriminate the Petitioner is irrelevant and premature to decide in the bail application. The case diary reveals that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. Except contending that the Petitioner is innocent, law abiding citizen and a false case is foisted, no substantial and believable contention is raised as to why he was arraigned as Accused No.2 in this case. 6. Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner has been absconding and Accused No.1 was released on regular bail is not a ground to consider for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 7. The Petitioner has suppressed material fact of dismissal of his first bail application by this Court on 15.06.2026 in Crl.P.No.4439/2026. Of course, he 4 has mentioned that his pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalli vide order dated 17.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.33/2026. 8. In this regard, it is 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.” 9. Thus, in G.R.Ananda Babu supra, it was held that successive anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is 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. 10. Therefore, this successive bail application cannot be entertained particularly when the case diary and the status report clearly indicate that Petitioner/Accused No.2 has been absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The Specious reason of change in circumstance cannot be invoked for second anticipatory bail application once the first bail application has been dismissed by this Court with a speaking order and that too by the same judge. 2 (2021) 16 SCC 725 5 11. In view of the above and the settled legal position, this Court finds no merits in the present Criminal Petition. The successive application for pre- arrest bail is not maintainable, particularly when the Petitioner/Accused No.2 has been absconding, not cooperating with the investigation, and has already suffered dismissal of his earlier bail plea by a reasoned order. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.08.2026 VTS