High Court dismissed a criminal petition for pre-arrest bail, relying on a precedent that successive applications are not maintainable when the accused is absconding and a prior application was rejected by a speaking order.
Writ petition dismissed with an order that pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3521]
APHC010462912026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7727/2026
Between:
SHAIK YUSUF ALI, S/O MAZEED,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O D.NO.15-245,SUNNAM BATTI STREET,YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518360.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Yemmiganur Town Police Station,Through Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati, Guntur District- 522 238.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7727 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
The 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 granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.82 of 2026 of Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 85 and 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
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.
1 (2021) 16 SCC 725
3
Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7727 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
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. The order passed by this Court is also a speaking order answering all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 10.09.2026 RSI/DRNR
4
Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7727 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026
22
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7727 of 2026
Date:10.09.2026
RSI/DRNR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether successive anticipatory bail applications ought to be entertained when the accused was previously rejected and is absconding.
Whether a mere change in circumstances constitutes valid ground for granting bail after a speaking order rejecting the application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶26
(2021) 16 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAIK YUSUF ALI
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
