CRLP/16079/2026 of Kalamuri Niranjan @ Niranjan, Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.9 and 10 in Crime No.46 of 2026 on the file of the Kollapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, facing accusations under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. Heard Mr.N.Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 06.03.2026, the mother of the deceased lodged a report stating that her younger son (the deceased) had married about one and a half years prior to the incident. She further stated that, while his/the deceased’s wife was pregnant died on 03.03.2026. Thereafter, she, her elder son, and the deceased went to her mother’s house at Madhavaraopeta. On 05.03.2026, the deceased left the house on his motorcycle but did not return. Subsequently, she was informed that his motorcycle had been found on Somasila Road. Upon searching the surrounding area, they found her son hanging from a tree. Suspecting the involvement of certain persons, she mentioned their names in the report and lodged a complaint. Based on the said report, a crime was registered under Section 194 of the BNSS. During the course of the investigation, a suicide note was found, pursuant to which the case was altered to one under Section 108 of the BNS.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that, following the death of the deceased on 03.03.2026, a panchayat was held involving the deceased and his family members, wherein the petitioners had acted as elders. It is further contended that, even if the allegations made against the petitioners are accepted as they stand, they do not disclose the commission of an offence of abetment of suicide. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the

investigation and that the other accused persons who were taken into custody have already been released on bail. In view of the same, and contending that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, learned counsel prays that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

7. The specific allegation against the petitioners, Accused Nos. 9 and 10, is that they, along with the other accused, abetted the suicide of the deceased. According to the prosecution, following the death of the deceased’s wife, a panchayat was convened at the Government Hospital, Kollapur, during which the petitioners and the other accused allegedly insulted and threatened the deceased, holding him responsible for his wife’s death. They allegedly told him, “Why are you still alive? You should also die; otherwise, pay Rs. 20 lakhs,” and further questioned that they will see how he could remarry.

8. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record definitive findings on disputed questions. Nevertheless, a prima facie assessment of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioners and the necessity for custodial interrogation is warranted.

9. Section 108 read with Section 45 of the BNS, requires the ingredients of abetment to be established. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that the Court must examine whether the accused’s conduct, viewed in its entirety and in the relevant context, discloses the requisite intention and instigation or other legally recognised form of abetment; mere harassment, by itself, does not necessarily establish the offence.

10. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners principally arise from the incident at the panchayat. Apart from the alleged threats and quarrel, no further specific acts or circumstances indicating instigation or intentional aid by the petitioners are presently brought to the notice of this Court. This assessment is, however, confined to the consideration of anticipatory bail and does not constitute a final determination of the prosecution case. Whether the alleged threats, read with the suicide note and other material collected during the investigation, establish the offence must remain open for consideration in accordance with law.

11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material presently available, the absence of any demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation, and the petitioners’ expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The fact that the co-accused have reportedly been granted regular bail is also a relevant consideration, although parity is not an absolute rule.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioners/accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kollapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, on or before 26.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release them on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of their release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioners shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

(E) The petitioners shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioners shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

13. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 12.10.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16079 OF 2026

DATE: 12.10.2026

mmr