-
by sayum
04 August 2026 1:39 PM
“When accused is absconding and custodial interrogation is pending, successive bail plea without fresh grounds is judicially impermissible”, In a significant ruling reiterating strict procedural discipline and the sanctity of judicial orders in the bail process, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a second anticipatory bail plea filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that mere passage of time, arrest and bail of co-accused, and partial investigation do not constitute a ‘substantial change in circumstances’ to justify reconsideration.
The ruling came in Criminal Petition, filed by one Gajula Siddhartha (A1), the prime accused in a criminal conspiracy involving alleged attempted violent eviction of occupants from disputed property, orchestrated through known rowdy elements, including payment of ‘supari’ to eliminate Ashram members.
Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, who had earlier dismissed Siddhartha’s first anticipatory bail plea in July 2025, rejected the renewed application, noting that no new facts had emerged since the previous rejection to warrant fresh consideration under Section 482 BNSS.
“Judicial decorum demands that successive bail pleas go before the same judge—forum shopping is antithetical to rule of law”
The Court, invoking the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, emphasised that judicial consistency and decorum require successive bail applications to be placed before the same judge, and that a rejected bail plea cannot be resurrected on cosmetic or repetitive grounds.
“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,” the Court quoted from the apex court’s ruling in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684.
Reinforcing this principle, the High Court declared:“Unless the earlier judge is unavailable, successive anticipatory bail applications ought to be placed before the same Bench, else it opens the door to forum shopping and inconsistent orders.”
“Arrest of co-accused or partial investigation cannot dilute serious charges and abscondence”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since several co-accused had been granted bail and some witnesses had been examined, these amounted to a change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of anticipatory bail.
The Court firmly disagreed, holding:“Arrest and bail of other accused, or partial progress in investigation, do not constitute a material change in circumstance, particularly where serious allegations persist and the petitioner continues to abscond.”
The Court invoked the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 961, where similar arguments were rejected. The Apex Court had categorically ruled:
“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.”
“Absconding accused cannot seek protection of law—custodial interrogation remains critical”
The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he apprehended “third-degree torture” and reiterated that his status as an absconder is a sufficient reason to deny protection under Section 482 BNSS.
Referring to Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, the Court adopted the definition of “absconding” to mean a person who is hiding or concealing to avoid arrest, and noted:
“The petitioner continues to abscond, and investigation reveals his central role in planning and financing a violent attack with intent to displace lawful occupants of the Ashram. Custodial interrogation is still required.”
The alleged payment of ‘supari’ to criminal elements to evict and possibly eliminate Ashram members was specifically cited as a grave charge, requiring deeper investigation, which could not proceed effectively without custody of A1.
“Successive bail may be maintainable in law—but not on recycled facts”
While the Court acknowledged the maintainability of successive bail applications under the BNSS jurisprudence—especially post Babu Singh v. State of U.P. and Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.—it clarified that mere repetition of circumstances or procedural progress without substantive development does not justify rehearing.
“The test is whether there is a substantial change in circumstance. Passage of time, or grant of bail to co-accused, without any fresh grounds on merits, cannot satisfy that test,” the Court observed.
Conspiracy, ‘supari’, and civil dispute turning violent
The FIR stemmed from a longstanding civil dispute between the petitioner’s family and the Shanthi Ashramam, which culminated in an alleged conspiracy to reclaim the property forcibly, despite a Supreme Court order directing possession to be handed over to the Ashram.
On 17 May 2025, allegedly under the petitioner’s instruction, notorious rowdy-sheeters entered the Ashram with stones and beer bottles, vandalised the premises, pulled down a flagpole, and issued death threats to those present, including Ashram Manager K. Ravi Prasad.
Though no major injuries occurred, the fear of future attacks compelled the victims to lodge a delayed complaint on 23 May 2025. The petitioner has not joined the investigation since then, citing false implication and threat of torture.
When liberty must yield to justice and investigation
In a judicial system where liberty is paramount, courts are nevertheless empowered to withhold anticipatory bail when the accused plays truant and the investigation seeks answers only he can provide.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has drawn a firm line between liberty and obstruction. This ruling makes it clear that Section 482 BNSS is not a refuge for absconders, nor can it be used to re-litigate failed pleas absent meaningful change.
“Bail jurisprudence prioritises liberty, but not at the cost of justice, consistency, or the integrity of the investigation,” the Court concluded.
Date of Decision: 24 November 2025
