Common Order:

1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. In Criminal Petition No.8591of 2026, the petitioner seeks the relief of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of Chandampet Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the BNS.

3. In Criminal Petition No.8594 of 2026, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.74 of 2026 registered on the file of Nalgonda Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the BNS.

4. Heard Mr. Kompelli Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. Since the petitioner in both matters is alleged to have been involved in offences of a similar nature and the issues arising for consideration substantially overlap, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order in the interest of judicial propriety, consistency and avoidance of conflicting decisions.

6. The facts, in brief, are that the de facto complainant, who was working as a Mobile Patrolling Guard engaged for safeguarding telecom infrastructure belonging to Airtel, IDEA and Jio companies, lodged a complaint alleging theft of batteries from Airtel Towers bearing Indus ID No.1072886 situated at Murupunuthala Village and Indus ID No.1065605 situated at Anneparthy Village, Nalgonda Mandal. It was alleged that unknown persons committed theft of 24 batteries each from the aforesaid tower sites by unlawfully entering the tower rooms and removing the batteries kept therein. Basing on the police report, crimes have been registered.

7.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the First Information Report was initially registered against unknown persons and the name of the petitioner does not find place therein. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting him with the commission of the alleged theft.

               7.2. Learned counsel would contend that the implication of the petitioner rests solely upon the alleged confessional statements made by certain accused persons in another crime, which, by themselves, do not constitute substantive evidence in law. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging the complaint, though the alleged occurrence had taken place much earlier, and such delay casts doubt upon the prosecution version at least for the limited purpose of considering a plea for anticipatory bail.

               7.3. Learned counsel would also submit that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment extending to less than seven years and, therefore, the safeguards contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which embody the principles governing arrest in offences punishable up to seven years, deserve due consideration. On these grounds, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

8.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation in Crime No.65 of 2026, accused Nos.1 to 5 were apprehended while allegedly transporting stolen cell tower batteries. During the course of investigation, the police are stated to have recovered 144 batteries, cash allegedly representing sale proceeds of stolen property, two motorcycles and two transport vehicles.

               8.2. It is further submitted that during interrogation, the apprehended accused allegedly confessed to their involvement in several incidents of theft committed within the territorial limits of various police stations across the State of Telangana, including the thefts involved in the present cases. It is contended that the investigation is still in progress and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation.

               8.3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further point out that the present petitions are successive applications seeking anticipatory bail. The earlier applications preferred by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court on merits after considering the material then available on record. It is argued that no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated by the petitioner warranting reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

10. The record reveals that the present petitions constitute successive applications seeking the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court upon consideration of the merits of the matter and the material collected during investigation.

11. It is well settled that a successive application for anticipatory bail is maintainable only upon the existence of a substantial, genuine and material change in circumstances occurring subsequent to the rejection of the earlier application. Mere repetition of grounds already considered, re-agitation of issues previously adjudicated upon, or reliance upon circumstances which do not materially dilute the prosecution case cannot furnish a valid foundation for reconsideration.

12. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that successive bail applications can be entertained only when there is a substantial change in the factual matrix or legal position necessitating a fresh consideration of the matter. The Court observed that judicial discipline requires subsequent applications to disclose fresh grounds which were either unavailable or had arisen after rejection of the earlier application. Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, the Supreme Court reiterated that repeated applications for bail, in the absence of any material change in circumstances, are impermissible and that courts should refrain from reviewing earlier orders indirectly under the guise of entertaining successive applications.

13. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any fresh material, subsequent event, development in the investigation, or change in law affecting the merits of the prosecution case. The grounds presently urged substantially overlap with those which had already been considered and rejected in the earlier orders passed by this Court. The alleged delay in lodging the complaint, the absence of recovery from the petitioner and the contention regarding implication based upon statements of co-accused were all matters available for consideration even at the time of adjudication of the earlier anticipatory bail applications and do not constitute supervening circumstances warranting a fresh examination.

14. In the absence of any substantial or material change in circumstances justifying reconsideration, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that adopted in the earlier anticipatory bail proceedings.

15. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present Criminal Petitions, the same are dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.