Chenishetty Rani & Others vs State of Telangana

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

As the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are accused in the same crime and seeking analogous relief, these petitions are heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.

The petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in FIR No.218 of 2026 on the file of Navipet Police Station, Nizamabad Distict, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329 (4), 351 (2), 292, 318 (4), 336, 340, 108 read with 62 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS").

Heard Mr. G.Prem Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Kamireddy Shiva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.13832 of 2026, Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13725 of 2026 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the husband of the deceased lodged a report with the police alleging that his wife had been subjected to harassment by Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the name of pressing the surety cheques into service, in connection with a chit-fund transaction involving an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is further alleged that Accused No.5 had forged the signatures of the wife of the complainant and had used the fabricated documents for instituting a false suit through Accused Nos. 6 and 7. Unable to bear the alleged harassment, the deceased became depressed and, on 29.07.2026, is alleged to have consumed pesticide and committed suicide, leaving behind a suicide note. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime came to be registered against the accused. Further, during the course of treatment at the hospital, a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the learned Magistrate.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are devoid of any factual basis and that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken at their face value, the alleged conduct of the petitioners was confined to demanding payment in connection with the chit-fund transaction. Such conduct, by itself, would not constitute harassment of such a nature as would satisfy the legal requirements of abetment to commit suicide. In this regard, learned counsel submits that the scope and applicability of Section 45 read with Section 108 of the BNS would arise for consideration.

It is further submitted that petitioner/A.5 is the co-sister of the deceased. The allegation that petitioner/A.5 created or used forged documents is made without furnishing any specific particulars. It is also submitted that, according to the de facto complainant, the said documents were used for instituting suits which are presently pending before the competent Civil Court. Learned counsel contends that the deceased had no knowledge of these proceedings or the alleged forged documents since March, 2026. Therefore, the alleged acts relating to the forged documents cannot, according to the petitioners, be said to have had the requisite proximity or nexus with the suicide, particularly in the absence of any specific act of harassment attributed to petitioner/A.5 subsequent to March, 2026.

It is further submitted that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitions and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint, as well as in the suicide note and the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that the material on record discloses specific acts of harassment attributable to the petitioners, which caused mental agony to the deceased and ultimately led her to commit suicide.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and that three witnesses have so far been examined and the custodial presence of the petitioners is required for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pray for dismissal of the petitions.

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

The substantive allegations against the petitioners are that accused Nos.1 to 4, in connection with the chit-fund transaction, threatened the individual members with presentation of the security cheques allegedly issued by the deceased and for payment of due amount of Rs.20.00.000/-. As against A.5, it is alleged that she got forged the signatures of the deceased, fabricated certain documents on the basis thereof, and instituted suits in connivance with the accused Nos. 6 and 7.

It is settled law that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court need not undertake a meticulous examination or appreciation of the evidence. The relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific allegations and role attributed to the petitioners, the stage and requirements of investigation, the likelihood of their interfering with the investigation or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The object of anticipatory bail is to safeguard personal liberty while ensuring that the investigation and judicial process are not prejudiced. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that the relief is discretionary and may be granted subject to appropriate conditions to secure the accused's cooperation with the investigation.

In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners find support in the suicide note and the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate. At this stage, these materials are required to be considered only for the purpose of making a prima facie assessment, without undertaking a detailed evaluation of their evidentiary value or expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case. The allegations, if established, are capable of attracting Section 45 read with Section 108 of the BNS, subject to proof of the statutory ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, however, do not, by themselves, constitute abetment; the alleged conduct must satisfy the requirements of instigation or the other statutory ingredients of the offence and must bear the requisite nexus with the suicide.

Having considered the nature of the allegations, the material presently available on record, the stage of the investigation, the respective roles attributed to the petitioners, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, and having regard to their undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation has not been shown to be indispensable at this stage. In view of the foregoing, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petitions are allowed, subject to following conditions.

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.