The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / State seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent / Accused No.4 vide Order dated 29.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1469 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri.

2. Heard Sri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor for Petitioner / State and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent / Accused No.4.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner / State would submit that the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent / Accused No.4 is illegal both on facts and in law. The Learned Special Judge has exercised discretion in a manner that is contrary to settled legal principles governing grant of bail, particularly in serious and economic offences. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that the second bail application was filed within a span of merely ten days from the dismissal of the earlier application. The earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1234 of 2025 was rejected on 18.08.2025 after due consideration of the material on record. The subsequent application in Crl.M.P.No.1469 of 2025 was filed on 28.08.2025 without any change in circumstances. It is a settled principle of law that successive bail applications can only be entertained if there is a substantial change in circumstances. There is no such change in the present case. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, High Court of Bombay in Ajay Rajaram Hinge vs. State of Maharashtra²2 3 4 2 B 2 0 0 a 2 2 il 3 2 A S S p C p C l C C ic a O O ti n n o L L n i i n n N e e o . B A 6 o P 6 m 5 1 4 o 1 6 f 5 5 2 5 0 1 2 3, dated 22.11.2023 and High Court of A.P in S.Chandra Sekhar vs. Sub-Divisional Police Officer³ Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the reasoning that filing of the charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstance is legally untenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere filing of a charge sheet does not dilute the gravity of the allegations nor does it automatically entitle an Accused to bail, especially in serious and economic offences. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Keshav Prakash Gupta vs. State (NCT Delhi)⁴ It is further submitted that the impugned order reflects inconsistency and lack of judicial discipline. The learned Special Judge had granted default bail to Accused Nos.31, 32 and 33 on the ground that the investigation is incomplete, despite charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet being filed. Those orders are already under challenge before the Hon’ble High Court, where judgment has been reserved. Despite this, the learned Special Judge has now taken a contradictory stand by treating the filing of charge sheets as a ground to grant bail to the present Respondent. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that the impugned order is further vitiated by absence of reasoning. The Learned Court below has failed to assign any cogent or convincing reasons for departing from its earlier order dated 18.08.2025. There is no discussion of facts, no evaluation of the Respondent’s role, and no consideration of the seriousness of the allegations. An unreasoned order granting bail in a grave offence is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the conduct of the Respondent also disentitles him from the discretionary relief of bail. The Respondent failed to disclose his complete criminal antecedents in the bail application. Such suppressio