CRLP/11064/2026 of KADURI RAMULU , Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, on 22 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 in FIR No.187 of 2026 of Yadagirigutta Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.Bugga Lingamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 09.06.2026, the brother of the deceased lodged a report stating that his sister had been married to Mr. Balakrishna, who had allegedly committed suicide on health grounds about eight months earlier. Thereafter, the petitioners, who are the family members of the deceased husband, allegedly persuaded the de facto complainant’s sister/deceased to relinquish her share in the family land. However, on 08.06.2026, a quarrel is stated to have taken place, during which the petitioners allegedly questioned the character of the deceased. It is further alleged that, on 09.06.2026, being aggrieved and depressed on account of the said incident, the deceased committed suicide. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire case is founded merely on the suspicion entertained by the de facto complainant. It is submitted that, even in the report, except for omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts have been attributed to any of the petitioners/accused. It is further contended that the alleged dispute regarding the share in the property has been projected by the de facto complainant as the reason for the deceased having committed suicide, solely as a pressure tactic. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are innocent and are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and that they are permanent residents with no likelihood of absconding or interfering with the investigation. The petitioners also undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioners be granted the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that, as per the report, there existed property disputes between the deceased and the petitioners. It is alleged that the incident which occurred on 08.06.2026 took place at the instance of the petitioners and caused such distress to the deceased that she was driven to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners may adversely affect the investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

8. The specific allegations against the petitioners are that, in the backdrop of a property dispute, they scolded the deceased, questioned her character, and thereby caused her mental distress, which allegedly led to the commission of suicide.

9. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction intended to protect an individual's personal liberty while ensuring that the course of investigation remains uninhibited. While exercising such jurisdiction, the

Court is required to balance the fundamental right to personal liberty with the interest of a fair and effective investigation. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that arrest should not be resorted to as a matter of course, particularly when custodial interrogation is not warranted.

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, the material presently available on record does not prima facie disclose any specific overt act attributable individually to each of the petitioners. The allegations are largely omnibus in nature and do not distinctly indicate the role played by each petitioner. Whether the alleged conduct amounts to intentional instigation or active aid so as to constitute the offence alleged is a matter to be determined during the course of investigation and, ultimately, at trial on the basis of the evidence adduced.

11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are permanent residents and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever required. There is no material on record to suggest that they are likely to abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. Significantly, the prosecution has not placed any material before this Court to establish the necessity for custodial interrogation.

12. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the lack of material demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be allowed, subject to appropriate conditions to secure the petitioners' availability for investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, on or before 31.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners 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 Station House Officer on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail or till filing of final result, whichever is earlier.

(C) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

14. 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: 22.07.2026 mnv

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11064 OF 2026

DATE : 22.07.2026

mnv