APHC010391732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6375/2026 Between: 1. MAILA VENKATA SAI KUMAR ALIAS CHANDU, AS PER REMAND REPORT OF A1 ANDA2,S/O BHAKTA ANJANEYULU, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DR NO. 104, VINAYAKA TEMPLE STREET,PEDDAMAINAVANI LANKA, THURPUTALLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Through the Station House OfficerMogalturuP.S, West Godavari District.Rep. By its public prosecutor.High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD 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.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.64 of 2025 of Mogaltur Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 194 of ‘the BNSS’. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, this Court, vide order dated 16.06.2026 passed in Crl.P.No.3731 of 2026, dismissed the first anticipatory bail application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner by the de-facto complainant. 4. 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 Nadu1, 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. 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 3 5. 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. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 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: 05.08.2026 PRA 4 113 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6375 of 2026 Date: 05.08.2026 PRA