CRLP/10885/2026 of Pudari Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana on 21 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 accused No.2 in FIR No.66 of 2026 of Mutharam(M) Police Station, Ramagundam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report alleging that her elder son committed suicide on account of the instigation and acts of the petitioner and the other accused. It is alleged that the wife of the deceased, namely the de facto complainant's daughter-in-law, had been maintaining an illicit relationship with accused No.1 for about two years. In this backdrop, while the daughter-in-law and accused No.1 were residing at Asifabad, certain relatives of the daughter-in-law allegedly visited their residence and admonished them, which incident was stated to have been videographed. It is further alleged that accused No.2, namely the petitioner herein, repeatedly telecasted the said video on the TG Telugu News Channel which is a social media platform and made it viral. According to the complaint, when the deceased contacted the petitioner and requested him to remove the video, allegedly the petitioner refused and stated that he would not remove the video even if the deceased were to die. It is the prosecution case that, feeling humiliated, aggrieved and mentally depressed on account of the petitioner’s acts, the deceased ultimately committed suicide.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly baseless and unsupported by any credible or substantive material. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime at the instance of his political opponents. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged video was neither recorded by the petitioner nor is there any material to demonstrate that its telecast or circulation and making viral on social media was at his instance. It is further argued that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must exist prima facie material demonstrating instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the accused, which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. According to the learned counsel, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide are not made out, even at a prima facie level. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801, wherein it was held that the essential ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide must be established before criminal liability can be fastened upon the accused.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not support the allegations against the petitioner. In particular, he points out that listed witnesses (LWs.8 and 9) have stated that the deceased committed suicide owing to the depression caused by the intervention of village elders and the mediation relating to the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and the wife of the deceased. It is contended that the remaining witnesses are merely hearsay witnesses, who have neither spoken about the alleged telephonic conversation between the deceased and the petitioner nor attributed any specific role to the petitioner in making the video viral.

5.3. It is therefore submitted that the allegations against the petitioner fall far short of satisfying the statutory requirements of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that a specific and active role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant as well as the witnesses have consistently stated that the petitioner repeatedly telecasted the video depicting the incident in which the relatives of the deceased's wife admonished her and accused No.1, through the TG Telugu News Channel, and thereafter caused the same to be widely circulated on social media with the intention of humiliating the deceased and driving him to commit suicide.

6.2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the investigating agency collected the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the deceased, which disclose telephonic communication between the deceased and the petitioner. According to him, the said material lends prima facie corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the telephonic conversation spoken to by the witnesses and establishes the proximity between the petitioner's alleged conduct and the occurrence of the incident. It is further contended that the petitioner's repeated telecast and circulation of the video constituted deliberate acts intended to instigate and abet the deceased to commit suicide.

6.3. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further points out that as many as fifteen other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. It is also alleged that, in one of the earlier cases, when the police attempted to secure the petitioner's presence, he acted in a hostile manner and obstructed the discharge of official duties, resulting in the registration of another criminal case against him. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the antecedents of the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The specific allegation is that the petitioner repeatedly telecast and circulated, through his YouTube channel and other social media platforms, a video depicting the incident in which the relatives of the de facto complainant's daughter-in-law were seen admonishing her and accused No.1 over their alleged illicit relationship. It is further alleged that, one day prior to the occurrence, the deceased contacted the petitioner over telephone and requested him to remove the said video from the social media platform. According to the prosecution, the petitioner refused to accede to the said request and allegedly stated that he would not remove the video even if the deceased were to die. Feeling humiliated and mentally distressed by the continued circulation of the video and the petitioner's alleged refusal to remove it, the deceased is stated to have committed suicide.

9. The material collected during the course of investigation, including the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the deceased, prima facie indicates that the deceased had telephonic contact with the petitioner on 27.05.2026, whereas the alleged incident of suicide occurred on 08.06.2026. Although the prosecution seeks to rely upon the said telephonic communication as constituting a proximate circumstance, the existence of a telephonic conversation, by itself, would not automatically satisfy the legal requirements necessary to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.

10. It is by now well settled that, in order to attract the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, the prosecution must prima facie establish the foundational ingredients of "abetment" as defined under Section 45 of the BNS, namely, instigation or intentional aid in the commission of the act. Mere allegations of harassment, humiliation, or strained relations, in the absence of a positive act or conduct displaying the requisite mens rea to provoke, incite, or compel the deceased to commit suicide, would not ordinarily constitute the offence of abetment.

11. The legal position in this regard stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Mahendra Awase (supra) wherein it was reiterated that, before an accused can be prosecuted for the offence of abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients constituting "abetment" within the meaning of the penal statute. The Court emphasized that there must exist prima facie material demonstrating a clear act of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation having a direct or proximate nexus with the commission of suicide. Mere allegations or suspicion, unaccompanied by material disclosing the requisite mens rea, would not suffice to attract criminal liability. Similarly in M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the offence of abetment of suicide necessarily requires proof of a positive act of instigation or intentional aid coupled with the intention to provoke or facilitate the commission of suicide. The Courts have consistently held that unless the acts attributed to the accused are of such nature as to leave the deceased with no reasonable alternative except to commit suicide, the essential ingredients of the offence cannot be said to have been satisfied.

12. Insofar as the grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is equally well settled that the power under 482 of the BNSS is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction intended to safeguard the fundamental right to personal liberty. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is required to balance the competing interests

of individual liberty and the need for a fair and effective investigation, having due regard to the nature of the accusations, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation. Reference in this regard may also be made to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Further, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that arrest is not to be made in a routine or mechanical manner merely because the offence is cognizable. The investigating agency is under an obligation to demonstrate the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the power of arrest must be exercised sparingly and only when the statutory conditions warrant such action.

13. In the present case, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the material presently available on record does not, at this stage, prima facie disclose any specific overt act on the part of the petitioner constituting instigation, intentional aid, or active participation so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Whether the allegations ultimately establish the requisite mens rea and proximate nexus between the petitioner's conduct and the commission of suicide are matters to be determined upon completion of the investigation and during the course of trial. At this stage, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. There is presently no material to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. Furthermore, except for the general assertion made by the prosecution, no specific material has been placed before this Court demonstrating that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of effective investigation.

14. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the material presently available on record, the settled principles governing the offence of abetment of suicide, and the law relating to anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to extend the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to such conditions as would ensure his continued cooperation with the investigation, secure his availability before the investigating agency and adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mutharam (M) Police Station, Ramagundam District, on or before 04.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner 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 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 eight (8) 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, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (D) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) Any violation of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail in accordance with law. In such an event, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional Court and the Court concerned shall be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law.

16. 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: 21.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10885 OF 2026

DATE : 21.07.2026

mmr