Dismissed

Peetha Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CRLP/7914/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 BNSS, petitioners sought pre-arrest bail challenging their arrest in an excise case. Having earlier been denied anticipatory bail in a rejected speaking order dated 03.08.2026, the petitioners filed a subsequent application. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, dismissed the petition as successive bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is absconding and refusing to cooperate. The Court held that a mere change in circumstances cannot validate a subsequent application after a reasoned rejection.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as successive anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable when the accused is absconding and earlier application was rejected by a speaking order.

Peetha Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010471312026

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7914/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PEETHA SWAMY, S/O. CHINNAYYA, AGE 33 YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,R/O. MARRIPUDI VILLAGE,RANGAMPETA MANDAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶10

PEETHA GANESH, S/O. CHINNAYYA, AGE 30 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,R/O. MARRIPUDI VILLAGE,RANGAMPETA MANDAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by S.H.O,Proh. Excise Police Station,Peddapuram, East Godavari District Rep. through the Public Prosecutor,Honble High Court at Amaravathi,For the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶16

V S R S NAIDU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

¶20

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7914 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.66 of 2026 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Peddapuram, Kakinada District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

¶24

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

¶25

As seen from the record, this Court, vide order dated 03.08.2026 in Crl.P.No.6236 of 2026, dismissed the first anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. There are no merits in this petition.

¶26

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:

¶27

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.

¶28

1 (2021) 16 SCC 725

¶29

¶30

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7914 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33