Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; prior denials must be respected to prevent judicial abuse.

ORDER :

Introductory:

1. This is a successive application filed by one Gajula Siddhartha/A1 in Crime No.244 of 2025 on the file of M.V. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, invoking Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNS S ), 2023 with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail directing his release on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the said case, which was registered with the allegations of committed offences under Sections 329 (3), 324(4), 308(5), 109(1), 61(2), 111(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of .

2. Earlier, the Crl.P.No.5861 of 2025, filed by the petitioner with a similar prayer was dismissed by this Court under common order dated 18.07.2025 in Crl.P.Nos.5730, 5860 and 5861 of 2025.

Case of prosecution:

3. The case of prosecution in succinct is that, one K. Ravi Prasad, said to be the Manager of Shanthi Ashramam lodged a report/complaint dated 23.05.2025 contending that pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.27400 of 2023, dated 21.02.2025, certain property, the subject matter of litigation between the parties was handed over by A1, G. Siddhartha and his family. In the said place a small cottage was laid and a photo of Baba was set inside. Security was also arranged.

4. Thereafter, G. Siddhartha/A1, in collusion with some rowdy elements viz. Chittimam etc. conspired to evict Ashram people and occupy the property. Supari was also paid to the rowdy sheeters for the purpose of eviction and even for eliminating the people concerned with the Ashram in the process of evicting. On 17.05.2025, when the informant K. Ravi Prasad, one Himabindu and others security guards were presented at the property, at the instigation of A1-Gajula Siddhartha, Rowdy Sheeter Chittimam along with his followers Jyothi Raghu, Uday Kiran, Prashant, Sai, Fakir and Kranthi etc. came, entered the Ashram place, pulled down the flagpole at mandapam and attempted to demolish the mandapam, hurling threats causing fear and anxiety. The individuals came and shouted loudly that they will kill. Further, the attempt was with stones and beer bottles etc. However, the informant party could escape by fleeing inside the Ashram. Though they could not report immediately due to fear, on the advice that such incidents may reoccur if complaint is not given, they gave the report.

Arguments:

For the petitioner/A1:

5. (i) Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, but due to civil disputes between the Ashram people and the family of the petitioner, the case is foisted with false allegations implicating the entire family including minors in the family of the petitioner, particularly to bring pressure on the petitioner party to the terms of the informant party to hand over the property without recourse to the execution court in respect of the civil litigation.

(ii) He has added that, the alleged incident occurred in the evening time on 17.05.2025, but the report is given belatedly on 23.05.2025 after six days. The presence of petitioner / A1 is not reflected. A14, A6, A2, A3, A17, A18, A21 and A22 are already released on bail.

(iii) Further, it is submitted that informant in the present case, who is accused in the counter case got the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Major part of the investigation might have been completed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam. The petitioner undertakes to abide by the law. Since he apprehends not only arrest but also third-degree torture, he is constrained to move this application for grant of pre-arrest bail. In view of the changed circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier a