A subsequent petition for pre-arrest bail is liable to be dismissed if no changed circumstances have occurred since the dismissal of the previous bail application.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.30 of 2026 before the Madgul Police Station, Future City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.2026 the de facto complainant lodged a report before the Police alleging that on the night of 25.02.2026, a quarrel took place between two groups over a prior dispute, during which the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the son of the de facto complainant with deadly weapons. It is specifically alleged that one of the accused stabbed the victim multiple times, causing grievous injuries, and the injured was shifted to hospital for treatment. Based on the complaint, a case was registered for relevant offences under the BNS against the accused persons including the present petitioner.

3. Heard Sri S.S. Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and his role is limited to being present at the scene only to pacify the dispute between the parties and that there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner and even the statements of co-accused do not disclose his involvement in causing any injuries. He further submitted that the allegations are general in nature and arise out of prior enmity, and the petitioner has not committed any offence and that the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by order dated 24.03.2026 in Crl.P. No. 3728 of 2026. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, contending that the allegations disclose a serious offence involving an unlawful assembly and a brutal attack with a knife causing grievous injuries to the victim and that the presence of the petitioner at the scene and his association with the co-accused indicates his involvement in the offence, and the matter is still under investigation. He further submitted that there are no changed circumstances from the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, and therefore the present petition is not maintainable. As such, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.3728 of 2026 before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of bail and the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2026 observing that

‘Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his role was limited to pacifying the dispute and that no overt act is attributed to him, such a defence cannot be conclusively examined at this stage. As seen from the record, the investigation is still in progress and the exact role of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at t