CRLP/8992/2026 of Bommaraju Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana, on 10 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 3 in FIR No.861 of 2026 on the file of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

3. Heard Mr. P. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the daughter of the de facto complainant/accused No.3 was married to accused No.1 on 01.04.2026 and accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. It is alleged that subsequent to the marriage, the petitioners demanded additional dowry in the form of 15 tulas of gold, silver articles and cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and subjected the de facto complainant’s son/deceased to physical and mental harassment. It is further alleged that the petitioners obtained four blank signed cheques from the deceased and threatened him, which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. On the basis of the report lodged, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false, baseless and fabricated. It is submitted that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 3 was the second marriage for both of them and the same was performed without any demand or exchange of dowry or valuables. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was facing financial difficulties due to losses sustained in his UPVC business and had sought a hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from accused No.1, and upon refusal, disputes arose between the parties.

5.2. It is further submitted that in fact, the accused No.3 was subjected to physical assault and wrongful confinement by her parental family members. He further contends that on 12.06.2026, the deceased voluntarily met accused No.1, expressed regret regarding earlier incidents and had a cordial discussion before leaving. According to the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide due to his own financial problems and personal reasons, and the petitioners had no connection whatsoever with the said incident.

5.3. It is further contended that the allegation that accused No.3 demanded dowry from her own parents is inherently improbable and the present complaint has been lodged only with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, they have no criminal antecedents and, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that at the time of marriage of accused Nos.1 and 3, the de facto complainant had given 5 tulas of gold and ½ kg of silver as dowry and soon thereafter, the petitioners started harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioners subjected the deceased to continuous harassment, intimidation and mental torture by repeatedly making phone calls and insisting upon fulfilment of their unlawful demands.

6.2. It is alleged that on 05.06.2026, the accused assaulted the deceased and forcibly obtained four blank signed cheques from him. Thereafter, on 12.06.2026, accused No.1 again called the deceased to his place, reiterated the demand for additional dowry and threatened to implicate the deceased and his family members in false criminal cases.

6.3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that due to the continuous harassment, threats and mental pressure exerted by the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide and the allegations prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners in abetting the suicide of the deceased. Considering the nature of offence and the necessity of proper investigation, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the material placed before this Court shows that the allegations against the petitioners are that they demanded additional dowry and subjected the deceased to harassment, which allegedly resulted in his committing suicide.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that, to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be prima facie material indicating instigation, intentional aid or a positive act on the part of the accused having a direct nexus with the act of suicide. Further, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act, and in the absence of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide, the allegation cannot be sustained merely on allegations of harassment unless there exists a proximate and live link between the alleged conduct of the accused and the suicide. (See: M. Mohan v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626).

10. In the instant case, the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 3 was performed on 01.04.2026 and the deceased committed suicide on 13.06.2026. Though the prosecution alleges that the petitioners made dowry demands, assaulted the deceased and threatened him, the defence version is that disputes arose on account of financial issues and business losses suffered by the deceased and that he was under financial stress. The truth or otherwise of these rival versions is a matter to be established during investigation and trial. At this stage, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither required nor warranted.

11. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the fact that the dispute appears to have arisen out of matrimonial and family circumstances, the absence of reported criminal antecedents against the petitioners, their undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, and there being no specific material placed before this Court at this stage to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable, this Court is of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail deserves positive consideration.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jawaharnagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District, on or before 21.07.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing 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 every Thursday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

d) The petitioners shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

e) In addition, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions contemplated under section 438(2) of BNSS.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.07.2026

MRKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8992 OF 2026

DATE : 10.07.2026

MRKR