Dismissed¶34

Sri Mohammad Tippu Sultan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2026CRLP/4773/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Crl.P.No.4773/2026; decided 10.07.2026 by Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao. Second/successive anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in Crime No.586 of 2025, Pulivendula Police Station, YSR Kadapa District (offence under Section 194 BNSS); earlier application dismissed 23.02.2026 in Crl.P.No.1206 of 2026 and not challenged before the Supreme Court; reliance on G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 16 SCC 725 on non-entertainment of successive anticipatory bail applications after a reasoned rejection; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Once an earlier anticipatory bail application has been rejected by a reasoned order, a mere change in circumstances is not a valid ground for entertaining a successive anticipatory bail application. ¶33

Sri Mohammad Tippu Sultan Vs the State of Andhra… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010298482026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4773/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI MOHAMMAD TIPPU SULTAN, S/O NIZAMUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 46/196, SATTAR COLONY, KADAPA CITY, Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT - 516001.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522239.

¶14

SRI SHAIK THAJ MAHABOOB, S/O SYED MASOOD AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O A-TYPE QUARIES, JNTUA COLLEGE PULIVENDULA TOWN, Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT - 516390

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

K SRINIVAS

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶19

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

¶21

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4773 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.586 of 2025 of Pulivendula Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶26

As seen from the record, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.P.No.1206 of 2026, dismissed the first anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the said order by filing the appropriate proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶27

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu¹ , wherein, at paragraph No. 6, it was held as under:

¶28

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.

¶29

1 (2021) 16 SCC 725

¶30

¶31

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4773 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026

¶32

Thus, in G.R.Ananda Babu supra , it was held that successive

¶33

anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. A mere change in circumstances is not a valid ground once an earlier application has been rejected by a reasoned order. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34