IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH APHC010213022025 AT AMARAVATI [3369]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4492 OF 2025 Between:

Bollada Panduranga Rao @ Paandu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:

This is the 2^nd Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) [previously filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973], seeking anticipatory bail to Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Undrajavaram Police Station, East Godavari, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

118(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2025, at about 7:25 p.m., at Bollaavari Centre, K. Savaram Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, the defacto complainant filed a complaint stating that while his firm servant was cutting green grass and bringing it to the house, A1 abused him with vulgar language when he was informed the same. Later, the complainant asked A1 about the abuse, and they had a dispute with each other. A1 beat him with his hands and kicked him with his legs. Meanwhile, A2 arrived with a knife and struck the complainant on his head, causing injury. Later, the complainant's cousin arrived and shifted him to the Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment.

Hence, the police registered the crime against A1 and A2.

3. Heard Sri Mangeena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s previous bail application (Crl.P.No.2105 of 2025) was dismissed by this Court on 24.03.2025. Hence, the 2^nd bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 as there is change of circumstances i.e., discharge of the injured from the hospital and also submits that investigation is completed. Hence, prayed to consider this Criminal Petition.

5. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner disputing the above fact that the investigation is not yet completed and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. As per the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Criminal Petition No. 2105 of 2025. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both counsel, dismissed the application on 24.03.2025. The 2^nd bail application filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 as there is change of circumstances i.e., discharge of the injured from the hospital and this Court is of the view that it cannot be taken as change of circumstances.

7. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated.

8. As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the Petitioner. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao, [1989 Supp(2) SCC 605] , wherein it is held that:

“7. xxx In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed.

xxx Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. An