CRLP/11160/2026 of Jakkula Raju Vs The State of Telangana, on 23 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.B.Arjun Rao, 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 died by suicide at their farmhouse. It is alleged that in the suicide note purportedly left by the deceased, the petitioner and other accused were named as responsible for the circumstances leading to his death. The allegations disclose that certain land situated near the Collector's Office on the outskirts of Duddeda Village was sold to the deceased by one Jakkula Raju, who, in turn, sold it to 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. Though efforts were allegedly made to settle the dispute before village elders, they failed. According to the complainant, the deceased was continuously pressured to repay the money, and owing to such circumstances allegedly created by the accused, he became depressed and ultimately ended his life. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of a vague reference to his name in the suicide note. It is contended that, even if the complaint and 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 abetment of suicide. It is further contended that mere mention of name in the police report without even reference in the suicide note and in the absence of material showing mens rea or any proximate and direct act compelling the deceased to commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever required and by complying with any conditions 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 specifically named the petitioner and others in the suicide note and that the deceased was subjected to pressure and harassment, ultimately resulting in his suicide. It is further submitted that the investigation is in progress and custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the circumstances leading to the deceased's death. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that, apart from the reference to the petitioner's name in the suicide note, there is no specific allegation or overt act attributed to the petitioner indicating direct instigation, intentional aid, or active participation in compelling the deceased to commit suicide. It is nevertheless contended that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the 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 on the suicide note, wherein the petitioner's name is mentioned. However, a prima facie examination of the material on record does not disclose any specific act of instigation, intentional aid, or active conduct attributable to the petitioner having a direct nexus with the deceased taking the extreme step.

9. It is well settled that, to attract Section 108 of the BNS, mere harassment, existence of a dispute, or 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 assistance leading to the suicide. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must exist a live link or proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the suicide, and the circumstances created by the accused must have left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide.

10. It is equally well settled that, while considering an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court must balance the accused's 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 arrest should not be made as a matter of routine where investigation can effectively proceed without custodial interrogation.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the material presently available, the absence of any prima facie specific overt act indicating active instigation by 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 grant of anticipatory bail. The interests of the investigation can be sufficiently safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner's availability before the Investigating Officer and to ensure that he does not interfere with 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 06.08.2026. 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: 23.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11160 OF 2026

DATE : 23.07.2026

CHS