APHC010233222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3369]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4924/2025 Between:

Moode Ravi Kumar Naik ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. DHEERA KANISHKA 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.1 in Crime No.3 of 2025 of Kadiri Rural Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

179, 318(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.01.2025 at about 05.45 AM, at the Market Yard, Kummaravandlapalli village, Kadiri Mandal, two accused persons purchased two rams (male sheep) from the de facto complainant by giving fake currency notes of Rs.32,000/- (64 notes x Rs. 500/-) with intent to cheat him and went away. After some time, the de facto complainant came to know that the said currency notes were fake and he searched for the accused in and around the market yard, but in vain. Based on the report given by him, the present case has been registered against the accused.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s previous bail application vide Crl.P.No.2760 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court on 28.3.2025. Hence, the 2^nd bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 as there is change of circumstances i.e., release of the other accused on bail. 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. 2760 of 2025. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both counsel, dismissed the application on 28.3.2025. The 2^nd bail application filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 as there is change of circumstances i.e., release of other accused on bail 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. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.”

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: