APHC010401082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6576/2026 Between: 1. TATAPUDI SURESH KUMAR, S/O T. PUSHPANANDAM, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O OF 1-186, SC PETA,DEVARAPALLI TOWN MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST.ANDHRA PRADESH, 534313. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.20 of 2026 of Gopalapuram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 137(1)(b), 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6576 of 2026 Dated 07.08.2026 143(4) and 61(2) read with and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, a coordinate bench of this Court, by order dated 07.04.2026 in Crl.P.No.2452 of 2026, dismissed the first bail application. The present application is the second bail application. There is no change in circumstances from the date of dismissal of the first bail application till the filing of the present second bail application. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu1 at para No.6 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.” 5. There are no merits in this petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges this Court to pass an order directing the Petitioner to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. This Court refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6576 of 2026 Dated 07.08.2026 Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand2, 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. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.08.2026 KMS 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6576 of 2026 Dated 07.08.2026 97 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 of 2026 Date:07.08.2026 KMS