Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12931
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J
A. Chinnamuni Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3798 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The court emphasized that a second anticipatory bail application cannot be granted without significant changes in circumstances since the prior rejection.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Dismissal of second bail application - It was held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material change in the circumstances since the previous petition was dismissed due to serious nature of allegations against him regarding knife assault amidst a family dispute. (Para 11)
(B) In assessing bail applications, substantial changes in fact situations or law must be shown to warrant reconsideration according to established precedents. The Court noted prior decisions reaffirming this principle, emphasizing non-interference when circumstances remain unchanged. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faces attempts to murder charges where allegations include him attacking a family member with a knife during a property dispute. Previous bail application was denied due to serious nature of the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court refused bail as no compelling new evidence presented undermining severe charges against the petitioner.
Issues: The principal issue revolved around whether significant changes in circumstances justified another bail application after prior rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a successive bail application needs demonstrable, significant change in circumstances or legal reasoning, otherwise it risks circumventing earlier judicial decisions.
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion of anticipatory bail application by the petitioner and state opposition. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegations of serious charges against the petitioner in a family dispute. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's assertion on considerations for bail application based on prior rulings. (Para 4 , 11) |
| 4. principles on succession of bail applications based on changes in circumstance. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decision on the bail petition dismissal. (Para 12) |
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3798/2024 Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED A Chinnamuni Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This is the second criminal petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C ., filed behalf of the petitioner/A.1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with on Crime No.1 of 2024 ofYerpedu UG Police Station, Tirupati District.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2023 at about 7.30 p.m. at the house of the defacto complainant, A.1 and A.3 are the blood relatives of the defacto complainant's family. The A.2 went to the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted the father of the defacto complainant with a knife, and caused bleeding injury on his head. Meanwhile, the defacto complainant tried to obstruct them. Then, A.1 also attacked and assaulted with a knife to the hands of the defacto complainant four times due to property disputes between the two families.
Heard. Perused the record.
4.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that although the investigation
5.
has been completed, the Station House Officer has been unable to file the charge sheet due to the Petitioner's failure to appear for arrest. He further submits that the Petitioner is suffering from ailments of old age, and the matter is merely a family dispute concerning the partition of immovable property. Additionally, learned counsel asserts that the Petitioner apprehends arrest, as he believes he will be subjected to third-degree methods if taken into custody.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes granting bail because the
6.
previous bail petition was dismissed against the petitioner/A.1 vide order dated 23.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.511 of 2024.
from the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an
7, As seen anticipatory bail application vide Crl.P.No.511 of 2024, which this Court dismissed the bail application following thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties. Upon perusal of the order dated 23.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.511 of 2024, it is manifest that there is a specific accusation made against the Petitioner that he stabbed the injured with a knife, and the medical certificate is also placed before this Court. Considering the serious nature of the accusations against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner therein.
Because the petitioner/A. 1 can manage that, he is not apprehended
8.
after the dismissal of the earlier application and his suffering from ill Uea\\.\y.
he has not produced cogent material that cannot be taken as a However, ground to grant anticipatory bail. Previously, this Court considered the serious of the accusations against the Petitioner and dismissed the petition.
nature The contentions raised by the Petitioner in this regard were already considered in the previous bail application, and hence, they do not deserve fresh consideration. Each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that others were released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny
