Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gajula Siddhartha vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 24 November, 2025
APHC010483732025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9540/2025
Between:
1. GAJULA SIDDHARTHA, S/O LATE GAJULA VIVEKANANDA, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4-72-14, C.B COLONY,
BEACH ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530007.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, throgh the S.H.O., M.V. Palem
P.S., Visakhapatnam, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. P V A PADMANABHAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9540 OF 2025
ORDER:
Introductory:
1. This is a successive application filed by one Gajula Siddhartha / A1 in Crime No.244 of 2025 on the file of M.V. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, invoking Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail directing his release on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the said case, which was registered with the allegations of committed offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 308(5), 109(1), 61(2), 111(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of BNS.
2. Earlier, the Crl.P.No.5861 of 2025, filed by the petitioner with a similar prayer was dismissed by this Court under common order dated 18.07.2025 in Crl.P.Nos.5730, 5860 and 5861 of 2025.
Case of prosecution:
3. The case of prosecution in succinct is that, one K. Ravi Prasad, said to be the Manager of Shanthi Ashramam lodged a report / complaint dated 23.05.2025 contending that pursuant to the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.27400 of 2023, dated 21.02.2025, certain property, the subject matter of litigation between the parties was handed over by A1, G. Siddhartha and his family. In the said place a small cottage was laid and a photo of Baba was set inside. Security was also arranged.3
4. Thereafter, G. Siddhartha / A1, in collusion with some rowdy elements viz. Chittimam etc. conspired to evict Ashram people and occupy the property.
Supari was also paid to the rowdy sheeters for the purpose of eviction and even for eliminating the people concerned with the Ashram in the process of evicting. On 17.05.2025, when the informant K. Ravi Prasad, one Himabindu and others security guards were presented at the property, at the instigation of A1-Gajula Siddhartha, Rowdy Sheeter Chittimam along with his followers Jyothi Raghu, Uday Kiran, Prashant, Sai, Fakir and Kranthi etc. came, entered the Ashram place, pulled down the flagpole at mandapam and attempted to demolish the mandapam, hurling threats causing fear and anxiety. The individuals came and shouted loudly that they will kill. Further, the attempt was with stones and beer bottles etc. However, the informant party could escape by fleeing inside the Ashram. Though they could not report immediately due to fear, on the advice that such incidents may reoccur if complaint is not given, they gave the report.
Arguments:
For the petitioner / A1:
5(i). Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, but due to civil disputes between the Ashram people and the family of the petitioner, the case is foisted with false allegations implicating the entire family including minors in the family of the petitioner, particularly to bring pressure on the petitioner party to the terms of 4 the informant party to hand over the property without recourse to the execution court in respect of the civil litigation.
(ii). He has added that, the alleged incident occurred in the evening time on 17.05.2025, but the report is given belatedly on 23.05.2025 after six days.
The presence of petitioner / A1 is not reflected. A14, A6, A2, A3, A17, A18, A21 and A22 are already released on bail.
(iii). Further, it is submitted that informant in the present case, who is accused in the counter case got the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Major part of the investigation might have been completed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam. The petitioner undertakes to abide by the law. Since he apprehends not only arrest but also third-degree torture, he is constrained to move this application for grant of pre-arrest bail. In view of the changed circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application viz. arrest and release of other accused and advanced stage of investigation, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail as prayed for.
(iv). Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there are no ingredients attracting attempt to commit murder etc. and the Sections under which case is registered even as per the contents of the complaint. The bail jurisprudence guides that personal liberties are to be the top priority. 5 Prosecution arguments:
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court. Mere arrest and release of some accused and examination of some witnesses does not by itself become a changed circumstance, particularly when the earlier application is dismissed by the same judge. The alleged change in the circumstances pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sufficient and that in a similar context of examination of some more witnesses and release of co-accused, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that successive bail applications ought not to have been allowed by the High Court in the case between G. R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another1.
Reply:
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, responding to the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor as to maintainability of successive applications for grant of bail, relied on the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P.2 and in Vipin Kumar vs. State of U.P.3
8. Heard both sides. Perused the Case Dairy. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.1
(2021) 16 SCC 725 2 (1978) 1 SCC 579 3 Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.).No.17918 of 2024] 6
9. The points that arise for determination in this petition are:
1) Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS?
2) What is the result of the petition?
Point No.1:
10. The objection of the prosecution is twofold:
1) The first objection is that a successive application for grant of pre-arrest bail is not maintainable and the Court cannot examine the change in circumstances even.
2) Petitioner is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail as the investigation is not yet completed and the merits as to entitlement are already considered by this Court.
Jurisprudence:
11. In a case between Jagmohan Bahl and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 4 , in respect of entertaining of second/successive bail application by another Judge, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the Judge who declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum. Observations in para nos.9 to 13 are found relevant. Hence, they are extracted as follows:
4
(2014) 16 SCC 501 7
9. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 415] wherein this Court took note of the fact that three successive bail applications made on behalf of the accused had been rejected and disposed of finally by one Judge of the High Court. However, another learned Judge, despite being aware of the situation, granted bail to the respondent. In that context, this Court held that long-standing convention and judicial discipline requires bail application to be placed before the learned Judge who had passed earlier orders. Proceeding further this Court observed: (SCC p. 690, para 5) "5. ... The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of courts' time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders. Since Justice Kamleshwar Nath was sitting in court on 23-6-1986 the respondent's bail application should have been placed before him for orders."
10. In State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao [State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 126] , the Court, placing reliance on Shahzad Hasan Khan [Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 415] , opined that: (Buddhikota Subha Rao case [State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 126] , SCC p. 611, para 7) 8 "7. ... In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the court's time as a Judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency."
11. In M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao [M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 491 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 742] , this Court reiterating the principle laid down in Shahzad Hasan Khan [Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 415] , Buddhikota Subha Rao [State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 126] and Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab [Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 1 SCC 649 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 225] held as under:
"3. In view of the principle laid down by this Court [Ed.: See Shahzad Hasan Khan case, (1987) 2 SCC 684; Buddhikota Subha Rao case, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 and Harjeet Singh case, (2002) 1 SCC 649.] , since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available."
12. In this context, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in Vikramjit Singh v. State of M.P. [Vikramjit Singh v. State of M.P., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 964 : AIR 1992 SC 474] , wherein bail granted by one Judge of the High Court was cancelled by another Judge. This Court, on being moved by the accused, opined that such a practice is not consistent with judicial discipline which is 9 expected to be maintained by courts. Proceeding further, the Court observed: (SCC pp. 64-65, para 10) "10. ... Otherwise, a party aggrieved by an order passed by one Bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another Bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary...."
13. On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum- shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system. This cannot be allowed to be encouraged. In this regard we may refer to the pronouncement in Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash [Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, (1998) 4 SCC 577] , wherein this Court has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted "choice" of the "forum" and every attempt at "forum- shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand. In Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar, (2009) 2 SCC 784] , it has been observed that the superior courts of this country must discourage forum-shopping.
10
12. In Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another5, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that where the first bail application is dismissed by the Judge, the successive applications shall be heard by the same Judge vide para 5. Relevant portion is extracted as under:
The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of courts' time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders
13. The observations in Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P.(2 supra) in para 2 of the judgement, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that an order refusing the application for bail does not necessarily preclude another on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different consideration. Entire para 2 reads as follows:
2. Briefly we will state the facts pertinent to the present petition and prayer and proceed thereafter to ratiocinate on the relevant criteria in considering the interlocutory relief of bail. Right at the beginning, we 5 (1987) 2 SCC 684 11 must mention that, at an earlier stage, their application for bail was rejected by this Court on September 7, 1977. But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are barred from second consideration at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over-turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con.
14. In Vipin Kumar vs. State of U.P.(3 supra), vide para 4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that there is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier bail application is rejected or bail is cancelled, if granted.
4. There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit.
15. The sum and substance of the authorities referred above would indicate that successive bail applications are maintainable. Therefore, the objection as to the maintainability of successive applications is not tenable.
16. The merit the Court has to consider is that there must be substantial change in the circumstances. However, the same will depend on the reasons on which the earlier bail application was dismissed and the facts and circumstances of each case.
12
17. In a case even in respect of a charge altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 306 IPC, it was not considered as substantial change in the circumstances by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in a case between Bablu Sahu vs. State of West Bengal6. It was a case where an application was moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was earlier dismissed for the offences under Section 302 IPC and a successive application was moved on altering the Section from 302 IPC to 306 IPC.
18. In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1 supra), relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, mere examination of certain other witnesses and arrest of other accused and their release on bail was not considered as a change in circumstances.
Analysis, reasoning and findings:
19. In the present case, the petitioner claims that in view of the bail orders in respect of other accused and as of the investigation might have completed since four months are completed after dismissal of earlier application, there is substantial change in the circumstances. The change in circumstances projected by the petitioner are that:
1) 18.07.2025: A-1‟s previous Bail Application CRLP.No.5860 of 2025.
2) 21.07.2025: A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-13 got bail. As on this date, as many as five witnesses were examined and investigation was in progress.6
2011 SCC OnLine Cal 3444 13
3) 28.07.2025: A-16 granted bail by this Court (AB CRLP.No.6151 of 2025). Five Witnesses were examined.
4) 29.07.2025: A-15 got bail. As many five (5) witnesses were examined. Material part of the investigation is completed.
5) 06.08.2025: A-22 granted bail. As many as eight (8) witnesses were examined.
20. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that A1/petitioner is absconding and that the information relating to the sharing of supari with the rowdy-sheeters engaged for the commission of the offenses is yet to be collected and the necessity for custodial interrogation of A1/petitioner is still subsisting. Therefore, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the petitioner.
21. In Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another 7, the word "absconding" was interpreted by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, however, in the context of application of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and it was observed that the term „absconded‟ in its etymological and ordinary sense is one who is hiding himself or concealing himself and avoiding arrest vide para 11, which reads as under:
11. The use of expression "reason to believe" employed in Section 82(1) CrPC would suggest that the Magistrate concerned must be subjectively satisfied that the person concerned has absconded or has concealed himself. In the context of Section 82 CrPC, we will have to understand the importance of the term "absconded". Its etymological and ordinary sense is that one who is hiding himself or concealing himself and 7 (2024) 12 SCC 382 14 avoiding arrest. Since the legality of the proceedings under Section 82CrPC is not under challenge, we need not go into that question.
22. With regard to merits, particularly relating to the petitioner/ accused No.1‟s entitlement for pre-arrest bail, in earlier orders a reference was made to the confession of co-accused in the presence of mediators as to payment of supari and the necessity for custodial investigation claimed by prosecution and also criminal antecedents, pendency of certain other cases. In that context, prayer for pre-arrest bail was negatived. In respect of those issues, there is no change in the circumstances.
23. In this context, it is found relevant to extract the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (1 supra) in paragraphs 4 and 6, which are as follows:
4. On this occasion, the learned Judge recorded the following reasons for acceding to the request for grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent 2.
The same read thus:
"(i) The date of occurrence is 11-11-2019.
(ii) Other 13 accused were arrested and surrendered, their confessional statements were recorded and they were released on bail.
(iii) 127 private witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded.
(iv) 12 months is over from the date of occurrence.
(v) Six months have passed from the date of dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail application.
(vi) The petitioner is aged 69 years alleged to be suffering from age-related ailments and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation."15
6. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.
24. On comparison of the factual scenario as to change in the circumstances claimed in the present case before this Court and change in the circumstances considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as not sufficient, it is found that the findings of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are applicable to the factual scenario in the present case before this Court. Hence, the prayer of petitioner does not deserve positive consideration. Point framed is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
25. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:24.11.2025 Knr 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9540 OF 2025 Date: 24.11.2025 Knr