CRLP/10429/2026 of Ponaganti Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana on 22 July 2026

COMMON ORDER:

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

2. Since the petitioners are accused in the same crime and the relief sought in both the Criminal Petitions is analogous, both the Criminal Petitions were heard together and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Mr.B.Srikanth, learned counsel representing Mr.Badra Nanavath, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1- State.

4. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.292 of 2026 of GDK I-Town Police Station, Ramagundam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report on 18.06.2026 stating that her elder son had committed suicide. It is alleged that, prior to his death, the deceased had recorded a selfie video, which was subsequently circulated on WhatsApp, wherein he stated that he had been subjected to continuous harassment, threats, and mental torture on account of monetary disputes involving his wife and her brother. It is further alleged that, due to such persistent mental pressure and humiliation, the deceased was driven to commit suicide by hanging himself in his house. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered for the offences alleged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further contended that, even according to the averments contained in the complaint, there are no specific allegations attributing any overt act to the petitioners amounting to instigation or abetment of the commission of suicide. Learned counsel submits that the allegations pertain only to disputes relating to repayment of money and the purchase of agricultural land, which, by themselves, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 108 of the BNSS. It is further contended that it is well settled that mere harassment or the existence of civil or monetary disputes, without anything more, would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. Nevertheless, the petitioners express their willingness to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and undertake to extend their full cooperation throughout the course of the investigation by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the selfie video recorded by the deceased and subsequently circulated on WhatsApp contains a clear narration of the overt acts allegedly committed by the petitioners, which, prima facie, disclose their role in driving the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It is further submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates instigation and the active involvement of the petitioners in pushing the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still underway and that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to adversely affect the investigation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

9. As borne out from the record, the petitioners are the wife and brother-in-law of the deceased. It is alleged that disputes arose between the petitioners and the deceased in relation to the purchase of agricultural land and the payment of the sale consideration, and that the petitioners had continuously harassed the deceased in that regard. It is further alleged that these aspects find mention in a video recorded by the deceased. Whether the said material ultimately satisfies the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide is a matter to be examined during the course of the investigation and, if necessary, at the trial.

10. It is a settled principle of law that the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with the evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation are among the relevant factors to be considered while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. [See: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694]. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest should not be made as a matter of course and that the Investigating Agency must justify the necessity for custodial interrogation.

11. In the instant case, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, the material presently available on record, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are permanent residents and have unequivocally expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, indicates that the prosecution has not placed any material demonstrating compelling or exceptional circumstances necessitating their custodial interrogation. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the investigation can effectively proceed by securing the petitioners'

cooperation through appropriate conditions ensuring their availability during the course of the investigation.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, GDK I-Town Police Station, Ramagundam, on or before 05.08.2026. 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 Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 09.00AM to 05.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of their release on bail or till filing of the 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. (F) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

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: 22.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10429 & 10430 OF 2026

DATE : 22.07.2026

CHS