##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:57986

APHC010644292025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12388/2025

Between:

VANUM DURGA PRASAD, S/O. SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 35

YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-163,GANDREDU VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI

MANDAL,KAKINADA DISTRICT ERST WHILE EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, S.H.O., Gangaraju Police

Station,G.Madugula, Alluri Sitharamaraju District,rep. by its Public

Prosecutor At High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravthi.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

G L NAGESWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2

D2r.0Y2L5R:A,JP HC:57986

Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025

Dated 29.12.2025

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to

enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.36 of 2025 of

Gangaraju Police Station, ASR District, registered against the

Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections

20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. On perusal of the record, this is the second bail application filed by the

petitioner/Accused No.4. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court

in Crl.P.No.11109 of 2025, vide order dated 06.11.2025. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor submits that there is no change in circumstances from the

date of dismissal of the earlier bail application till the filing of the present bail

application. The petitioner was arrested on 06.09.2025. He has been in

judicial custody for the past 114 days. The petitioner has not completed the

statutory period of 180 days in judicial custody for grant of default bail.

3

D2r.0Y2L5R:A,JP HC:57986

Crl.P.No.12388 of 2025

Dated 29.12.2025

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, 1(2005) 8 SCC 380, at paragraph

No.9 held as under:

“9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail

to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was

unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without

there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh

application should not have been dealt with within a short span of

time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case

for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable

to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications

without there being any change of circumstances would lead to

bad precedents.”

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2(2004) 7 SCC 528

at paragraph Nos.12 & 20 held as under:

“12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been

rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the

subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on

which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such

consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be

granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why

in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail

should be granted. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay [(2002) 3 SCC

598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] .)

20. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a

right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court

entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to

consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail

applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a

duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take

a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In

the impugned order we do not see