ORDER : V R K Krupa Sagar, J. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), is filed by the petitioner/A.1 seeking regular bail in Crime No.184 of 2024 of Vinukonda Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) read with 190 of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 . 2. Heard arguments of Sri Shaik Meeravali, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. Perused the record. 4. Prosecution case is that Sri Rasheed was murdered on 17.07.2024 at 8:00 P.M. on a road in Vinukonda Town. It is stated that there have been disputes between the deceased and Sri Shaik Jilani @ Jani/A.1. A.1 had an information that the deceased was available near Government Wine shop and with a view to kill him he contacted his aides/A.2, A.5, A.8, A.10 to A.15 and A.17 to 20 and a juvenile in conflict with law and on his instructions the rest of the accused reached the Government Wine shop. The deceased noticed them and started running away. A.1 and his associates ran after him. A.1 was able to reach the deceased and he caught hold of him. His associates surrounded the deceased preventing the general public from interfering. Then using a mutton cutting knife A.1 attacked the victim and by his first blow the left hand of the victim below the left elbow was severed. A.1 did not refrain himself and he further proceeded and had hacked on the head, neck, right hand of the victim and caused serious injuries. The deceased fell in a pool of blood. The associates of A.1 were wielding sticks. The incident occurred on the road and several people captured the incident using cameras available in their mobile phones and the said videos were circulated through social media. One of the police officers who happened to be on bandobust duty around the spot of offence was able to apprehend A.1 and recovered the crime knife from his possession. 5. The brother of the deceased, having got the information about the attack on his younger brother rushed to the spot and found the victim struggling for life. When they were shifting the injured to the hospital he died enroute. 5. The brother of the deceased, having got the information about the attack on his younger brother rushed to the spot and found the victim struggling for life. When they were shifting the injured to the hospital he died enroute. Then the elder brother of the deceased lodged written information at 1:00 A.M. on 18.07.2024. 6. A.1 in the said crime was remanded to judicial custody. He filed Crl.M.P.No.382 of 2024 before the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet seeking regular bail. The other accused filed similar petitions. By a common order dated 29.08.2024 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition of A.1 as well as the petitions of other accused. 7. It is thereafter A.1 moved Criminal Petition No.6748 of 2024 praying for regular bail. This Court in a detailed order dated 06.11.2024 running into 14 pages declined to grant bail. 8. It is after lapse of two months the present renewal bail petition is filed for A.1. 9. In the bail petition the following grounds are urged and the learned counsel for petitioner argued them: The petitioner herein had not committed the overt acts as averred by the prosecution and he was falsely implicated without any iota of evidence. On bare perusal of the instant prosecution case, it is manifestly evident that the alleged offences registered against the petitioner are not attracted in any manner. It is pertinent to note that the present complaint is foisted, concocted and frivolous, afterthought, artificial, tutored, stereotypical and preferred purely with an oblique motive to wreak vengeance against the petitioner herein. Even as per the averments presented in the police report, the case of the complainant and charge sheet discloses previous grudges and animosity between the petitioner and the deceased. The alleged overt acts primarily or specifically do not attract the ingredients of the said offences. A bare observation of the subject matter concludes an inordinate and unexplained delay with deliberate afterthought in registering the alleged crime. Furthermore, the allegations are vague, general, bald and extremely omnibus and do not specify/attribute individual overt acts against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is rightly entitled for bail on such sole ground. The petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences wherein whatever allegations made against him are all absolutely false and baseless. As such, the petitioner is rightly entitled for bail on such sole ground. The petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences wherein whatever allegations made against him are all absolutely false and baseless. The petitioner never committed any crime or is involved in any such offences earlier and therefore, the petitioner does not have any previous criminal antecedents of any nature. As such, in order to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law, the subject matter warrants indulgence/interference from this Court for grant of bail. The entire investigation is completed by the investigation agency and the scene of offence and sufficient witnesses were examined along with medical examination. As such, there is no scope of tampering with any evidence or causing hindrance to the investigation by the petitioner. The petitioner shall unhesitatingly cooperate with the investigation officer and the trial Court, if so required. Also, the petitioner has kids of tender age and as such, he is rightly entitled for grant of bail. The petitioner has severe health aliments and due to his arrest, his health condition is deteriorating. He is the sole bread winner of his family. Moreover, he is a law- abiding citizen and has no previous criminal antecedents of the nature of crime in subject matter. He has a fixed abode at Palnadu District and has movable and immovable properties at his residence. He would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of granting bail to him. Furthermore, the petitioner has sufficient solvent sureties to secure his attendance whenever required. The police mentioned previous three cases where the petitioner was involved. In that one of the case ended in acquittal in connection with Crime No.113 of 2024 which was numbered as CC No.77 of 2024 and the same was closed by the learned Lok Adalat at Vinukoda in Lok Adalat Case No.57 of 2024 dated 29.06.2024 and other two cases are pending for adjudication. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State seriously contended that this is a premeditated ghastly murder and the petitioner has serious criminal antecedents. The witnesses are under severe threat and police picketing has still been continuing to protect them. There were applications filed for cancellation of bail to A.5. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State seriously contended that this is a premeditated ghastly murder and the petitioner has serious criminal antecedents. The witnesses are under severe threat and police picketing has still been continuing to protect them. There were applications filed for cancellation of bail to A.5. The lives of survivors of this crime are in peril at the hands of this accused and any release of him is in all probabilities lead to their extinguishment. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the change of circumstance in this case from the time of earlier bail petition is that now the investigation was completed and charge sheet was laid. 12. In response to the above, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that even by the time the earlier bail petition was heard charge sheet was filed and the order of this Court made extensive references to the contents of the charge sheet also. It is argued that there are absolutely no change of circumstances in this case and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage. 13. It is a matter of fact that a copy of the charge sheet was filed before this Court by the prosecution arraigning A.1 to A.20. It listed 36 witnesses. The last paragraph of the charge sheet reads as below: “Thus it is evident that the accused A1 along with the other accused A2, A5, A.8 and A.10 to A15, A17 to A20 and CICL who are his associates grew grudge against the deceased due to previous grudges and conspired together, hatched plan and according to their plan A1 and other accused and CICL formed into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, committed rioting and attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and A1 hacked with a mutton cutting knife and killed him instantaneously, and they are rendered themselves liable for punishment u/s. 103(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) read with 190 BNS and Sec 27 of Arms Act, 1959 , hence pray the Hon’ble Court to punish the accused A1, A2, A5, A8, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A17, A18, A19 and A20 accordingly.” 14. Having considered the rival submissions, it is to be seen that the material on record indicates that the offence committed was not out of sudden impulse and the allegations indicate premeditation on part of A.1 and the key role was allegedly played by A.1 as he was the one who gathered the rest of the accused and he led the group and he chased the victim. The allegations in the prosecution case show that the other accused were preventing the public from interfering with the act that was to be committed by A.1. The entire allegations show that it is A.1 who was holding the dangerous weapon called mutton cutting knife and it is A.1 who caused fatal injuries resulting in the death of the victim. 15. On a busy road this petitioner chased and attacked the victim and inflicted serious wounds on the victim by multiple attacks leading to the death. This was captured by scores of persons on their mobile phones and a ghastly incident hit the social media and became viral and created immense panic among general public. The claim of the petitioner that it is a foisted case is best to be argued by him at the time of trial. The material placed before me is sure to dispel his notion. Referring to cases of this nature and exhorting the Courts to desist from granting bails, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made pertinent observations in X v. State of Rajasthan ( 2024 INSC 909 ). This Court records that between the earlier bail petition and the present bail petition there are no change of circumstances. Therefore, this Court finds no purposeful need to revisit the matter at any further length. In these circumstances, I shall decline to accede to the prayer. 16. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. I clarify that what has been observed in the earlier paragraphs shall not be considered as an expression of any final opinion as regards the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the learned trial Court at appropriate time for appropriate relief.