High CourtsSingle Bench

V R Venkatesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati · Decided on 7 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
CASE NUMBER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6106/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 334 words

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.147 of 2026 of Alipiri Urban Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3.

As seen from the record, this Court, by order dated 10.07.2026 in Crl.P.No.5353 of 2026, dismissed the first bail application. The present application is the second bail application. There is no change in circumstances from the date of dismissal of the first bail application till the filing of the present second bail application. The Petitioner submits that he has a three-year-old child and that his wife is eight months pregnant, with her expected date of delivery being 14.10.2026. However, these circumstances cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner at present. The Petitioner can renew his application in the month of October two weeks before delivery of his wife.

4.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu1 at para No.6 held as under:

“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.”

5.

There are no merits in this petition. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________

Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J Date: 07.08.2026 KMS 96

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6106/2026 KMS

Footnotes

  1. 1.(2021) 16 SCC 725