APHC010659182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12643/2025 Between:

1. CHOMPI DIVAKAR, S/O SOMANNA, AGE 22 YEARS,R/O SEMILIGUDA RANGASEELA PANCHAYAT, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT.

2. CHOMPI KALYAN, S/O SOMANNA, AGE 24 YEARS,R/O SEMILIGUDA RANGASEELA PANCHAYAT, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT.

3. THANGULA KIRAN KUMAR, S/O RAMANA, AGE 21 YEARS R/O KORRA VILLAGE, DHUBRIGUDA MANDAL,ASR DISTRICT.

4. CHOMPI SANYASI, S/O SOMANNA, AGE 30 YEARS R/O SEMILIGUDA RANGASEELAPANCHAYAT, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. KOTHURU APPARAO ALIAS APPAJI

2. APPA RAO KOTHURU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 on bail in Crime No.246 of 2025 of Vizianagaram I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) 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 Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. On perusal of the record, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.11907 and 11921 of 2025, videcommon order dated 24.11.2025, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioners on the ground that they were involved in dealing with a commercial quantity of Ganja. The present application was filed on 04.12.2025, within a period of 10 days. There is no change in circumstances.

The charge sheet has not yet been filed.

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 any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while gra