CRLP/11304/2026 of Pilli Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana on 27 July 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused in FIR No.213 of 2026 on the file of Siddipet-III Town Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.G.Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.06.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that her husband had died by suicide at their farmhouse. According to the prosecution, certain land situated near the Collector's Office on the outskirts of Duddeda Village was sold to the deceased by one Jakkula Raju, who had, in turn, purchased the same from Endla Srinivas Reddy. Subsequently, it came to light that the land was Government land, whereupon the subsequent purchaser demanded refund of the sale consideration and initiated legal proceedings. Although attempts were allegedly made to amicably resolve the dispute before village elders who includes the petitioner/accused, they proved unsuccessful. The complainant alleges that the deceased was thereafter subjected to continuous pressure to repay the amount and, owing to the circumstances allegedly created by the accused, became depressed and ultimately ended his life. On the basis of these allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's name does not find mention in the suicide note and that he has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the de facto complainant. It is contended that, even if the complaint and the suicide note are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose any specific overt act, intentional aid, active participation, or instigation on the part of the petitioner so as to constitute the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. It is further contended that the mere inclusion of the petitioner's name in the police report, without any reference to him in the suicide note and in the absence of material indicating the requisite mens rea or any proximate and direct act compelling the deceased to commit suicide, would not amount to abetment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required and by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the deceased had specifically named certain persons in the suicide note and that the petitioner/accused was also part in subjecting the deceased to continuous pressure and harassment, which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to ascertain the circumstances leading to the deceased's death. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that, the petitioner's name is not referred in the suicide note, there is no specific allegation or active participation in compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Nevertheless, it is contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the deceased's suicide. The prosecution primarily relies upon the police report lodged by the de facto complainant, wherein petitioner's name is mentioned. However, a prima facie examination of the material available on record does not disclose any specific act of instigation, intentional aid, or active conduct attributable to the petitioner having a direct or proximate nexus with the deceased taking the extreme step.

9. It is well settled that, to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, mere harassment, the existence of a dispute, or the mere mention of a person's name is insufficient unless the essential ingredients of "abetment" are established. There must be a clear element of mens rea, coupled with a proximate act of instigation, provocation, or intentional aid that has a direct nexus with the commission of suicide. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must exist a live and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the suicide, and that the circumstances allegedly created by the accused must have been such as to leave the deceased with no option except to commit suicide.

10. It is equally well settled that, while considering an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to balance the accused's right to personal liberty with the need for a fair and effective investigation. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value and that arrest should not be resorted to as a matter of routine where the investigation can effectively proceed without custodial interrogation.

11. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material presently available on record, the absence of any prima facie material disclosing a specific overt act indicative of active instigation on the part of the petitioner, and the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the investigation can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner's availability before the Investigating Officer and to ensure that he does not, in any manner, interfere with the course of the investigation.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Siddipet-III Town Police Station, Siddipet District on or before 09.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner 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: 27.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11304 OF 2026

DATE : 27.07.2026

CHS