Asma Farheen & Ors. vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioners, who are the wife and parents-in-law of the deceased, are accused in Crime No. 414 of 2026, dated 28.07.2026, registered at Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 194 of the BNSS.

Heard Mr.Kondadi Ajay, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, on 28.07.2026, a report was lodged by the sister of the deceased, stating that the deceased was her brother and that he had married Petitioner No.1. It was further stated that certain matrimonial disputes had arisen between the deceased and Petitioner No.1 and that divorce proceedings were pending between them. In connection with the said proceedings, counselling was also being undertaken. While the matter stood thus, at about 9:30 a.m. on the same day, the younger son of the deceased found his father, i.e., the deceased, hanging from a ceiling hook in the bedroom. Despite the medical efforts made to save him, the same proved futile, and the deceased succumbed to his condition. Pursuant to the said report, a crime came to be registered under Section 194 of the BNSS.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, namely, the wife and parents-in-law of the deceased, had been frequently summoned by the police concerned. In the said circumstances, they apprehend that a criminal case may be registered against them, in view of existing matrimonial disputes, and that, by showing them as accused, the police may take coercive steps against them.

Learned counsel further submits that neither the complaint nor the statement of the de facto complainant, stated to have been recorded by the police, discloses any incriminating material against the petitioners, much less any material constituting the commission of a cognizable offence by them. According to the learned counsel, however, the frequent summoning of the petitioners by the police has given rise to the apprehension that they may be implicated in the crime and subjected to coercive action. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present petition has been filed.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, upon receipt of the report regarding the death, the police registered a crime under Section 194 of the BNSS and that the investigation/enquiry is presently in progress. He submits that, as of now, the statement of the de facto complainant alone has been recorded and that further enquiries are pending. He further submits that, during the course of such enquiry, the presence of Petitioner No.1 alone was noted and that there was no occasion for the police to require the frequent presence of all the petitioners, as alleged. He submits that, if the enquiry ultimately discloses the commission of any cognizable offence, the police concerned will strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by law. In such circumstances, it is contended that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is without any basis, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

The submissions on either side make it clear that the deceased, who was the father of the de facto complainant, died in circumstances suggestive of suicide and that, pursuant to the report regarding his death, a crime was registered under Section 194 of the BNSS. It is not in dispute that the investigation/enquiry is underway and that, so far, the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded.

Having regard to the allegations in the report and the statement of the de facto complainant, the petitioners’ specific plea that they have been repeatedly summoned for enquiry, and their apprehension of arrest and coercive action, this Court is required to balance their right to personal liberty with the legitimate interests of the investigating agency. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

Section 482 of the BNSS statutorily recognizes the power to grant anticipatory bail. The provision empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to grant protection where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, subject to appropriate conditions. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the corresponding provision under the Cr.P.C., has held that anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard personal liberty while ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that the relief is to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and that appropriate conditions may be imposed.

In the present case, the material presently available does not disclose any specific circumstance necessitating the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The prosecution states that the enquiry is at an initial stage, that only the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded, and that the presence of Petitioner No.1 alone was noted during the enquiry. It is also fairly submitted that, should the enquiry disclose any cognizable offence, the police will follow the procedure prescribed by law.

In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate outcome of the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for protection under Section 482 of the BNSS. Their apprehension of arrest, particularly in view of the police requiring their presence for enquiry, cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. The interests of investigation can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions requiring the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for enquiry as and when lawfully required. The principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, also require that arrest should not be treated as an automatic consequence and must be justified in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail merits favourable consideration, subject to appropriate terms and conditions, as follows;

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.