P Zaiuddin Khan vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J

This is the 2nd Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) has been filed by the Petitioner/A4, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.584 of 2023 of Kurnool IV Town Police Station.

The above crime was registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act.

The Prosecution’s case, succinctly outlined, that on 28.12.2023 at about 22.30 hours at Chennamma Circle, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool town, A.1 to A.5 picked up an altercation with the defacto complainant and insulted him in the name of caste and attacked him with hands and sticks. As a result, the defacto complainant sustained bleeding injuries on the left side of face and also blood wound on the left eye and a dull wound on the buttock. When the friends of the defacto complainant intervened, the accused also beat them with their hands. The defacto complainant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and alter shifted to private hospital where the doctors advised him to undergo surgery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, due to political conflicts between the leaders of two political parties, the political leaders of the YSRCP have wrongfully implicated the petitioner/A.4 in this case, despite his lack of involvement. With the exception of the petitioner/A.4, all remaining accused have been granted bail in connection with this matter. Furthermore, learned counsel points out that this Court previously partly allowed the first bail application in its order dated 08.05.2024, in Crl.P.No.2083 of 2024, wherein anticipatory bail was granted to A.1. Notably, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/A.4 regarding his alleged abuse of the defacto complainant by referring his caste.

The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there have been no changes in circumstances that would warrant the consideration of the present bail application filed by the Petitioner.

As seen from the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an anticipatory bail application vide Crl.P.No.2083 of 2024, which this Court dismissed following thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties. Upon perusal of the order dated 08.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.2083 of 2024, it is manifest that specific allegation has been made against the petitioner/A.4 is that he abused the defacto complainant by referring to his caste. Consequently, his bail application was dismissed on 08.05.2024.

Regarding the contention that other Accused persons were released on regular bail, this Court may not necessarily view this as a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that others were released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated.

As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605 , wherein it is held that:

“7. xxx In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed.

xxx

Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.”

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“20. Xxx Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.”

By following the aforementioned rulings, it is clear that unless there is a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined consider the second anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.