Chepuri Durgesh Chary And Others 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 are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.228 of 2026 on the file of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.G.Prem Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, owing to ongoing property disputes between the petitioners and the family members of the deceased, the petitioners allegedly assaulted the deceased and, during the course of the altercation, uttered the words, “Why are you still alive? Die.” Unable to bear the alleged harassment, the deceased is stated to have committed suicide by leaving a suicide note and thereafter jumping from the seventh floor of Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids. Based on the report lodged by the daughter of the deceased, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have never in any manner abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. He further submits that, on the previous night, the deceased had gone to visit his mother, where an altercation took place between his sister, who is arrayed as Accused No.2, and the family members in connection with the family property dispute. During the course of the said quarrel, the petitioners are alleged to have uttered the words, “Why are you still alive? Die.”

Learned counsel further submits that, even if the said allegation is taken at its face value, it does not satisfy the essential requirements of “abetment” within the meaning and scope of Section 107 of the BNS. According to him, the petitioners have been implicated primarily on the basis of the alleged suicide note and the long-standing disputes relating to family property. He contends that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and that the words allegedly uttered by them were made in the heat of a domestic quarrel.

It is further submitted that it is well settled that a mere exhortation to a person to “go and die”, uttered during the course of a quarrel, does not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Learned counsel also submits that, as per the complaint itself, the deceased left his workplace and returned to his place of residence, and that no subsequent circumstance has been referred to which would indicate any intentional act on the part of the petitioners facilitating or instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has substantially progressed and that the statements of the material witnesses have already been recorded. He contends that the petitioners are permanent residents and there is no reasonable apprehension of their absconding or fleeing from the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioners are also stated to be willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, learned counsel urges that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that there was admittedly an incident of quarrel during which the petitioners allegedly instigated the deceased and made a clear and direct statement asking him to die. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said conduct caused severe mental agony to the deceased and, having allegedly found no other option in view of the harassment meted out by the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide. He submits that this aspect is specifically reflected in the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, during the course of investigation, seven witnesses have been examined and that the investigation is still in progress. He contends that the presence of the petitioners may be necessary for the purpose of custodial interrogation and for conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

The prosecution case is that the petitioners abetted the deceased’s suicide. Against the backdrop of an ongoing family property dispute, when the deceased visited his mother on the date of occurrence, a quarrel allegedly took place during which the petitioners allegedly beat him and are stated to have uttered, “Why are you still alive? Die.” It is thereafter alleged that, unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide.

At the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or a mini-trial, but only to make a prima facie assessment without expressing findings that may prejudice the trial. The Supreme Court has consistently held that an exhaustive examination of merits is neither necessary nor appropriate at the bail stage, though the discretion must be exercised judiciously. Further, Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 empowers this Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest for a non bailable offence, subject to conditions, including availability for interrogation, refraining from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts, and not leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The alleged offence is punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, relating to abetment of suicide. Under Section 45 of the BNS, abetment consists of instigating a person, engaging in the specified form of conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of the act by an act or illegal omission. Thus, criminal liability for abetment of suicide ultimately requires proof of the statutory ingredients, including instigation or intentional aid.

The Supreme Court has held that abetment ordinarily requires an active or positive act having a proximate nexus with the suicide. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it was held that mere harassment, without a positive action proximate to the occurrence leading to suicide, would not by itself constitute abetment. Instigation may, however, be inferred where the accused’s conduct creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option. Likewise, in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC 371, where the accused was alleged to have told the deceased to “go and die”, the Supreme Court, having regard to the circumstances and intervening period, found the material insufficient to establish abetment. The relevant consideration is therefore the words used, the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the accused, the proximity to the suicide, and the requisite nexus, viewed cumulatively.

In the present case, the material presently available indicates that the immediate occurrence arose from a family property dispute and that the alleged utterances were made during the ensuing quarrel. The investigation is still in progress. This Court therefore refrains from expressing any final opinion on the evidentiary value of the alleged suicide note or on whether the utterances, viewed with the surrounding circumstances, ultimately constitute instigation or intentional aid under Section 45 of the BNS. For the limited purpose of anticipatory bail, the Court must balance the gravity of the accusation with the petitioners’ personal liberty and the need to preserve a fair investigation. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reiterated that the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, and the facts and circumstances of each case are relevant considerations, while ensuring that pre-arrest bail does not impede investigation.

Here, the petitioners’ alleged role is confined to their participation in the quarrel and the words attributed to them during it. There is presently no material showing any subsequent act specifically facilitating the suicide or any continued pressure upon the deceased immediately before the occurrence. Seven witnesses have already been examined, including family members acquainted with the alleged quarrel. No specific material has been placed before the Court demonstrating that custodial interrogation is indispensable for discovering any fact otherwise incapable of being obtained through examination in accordance with law.

The petitioners have expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by appropriate conditions. There is presently no material indicating that they are likely to abscond, evade the process of law. Having regard to (i) the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the alleged utterances; (ii) the specific role attributed to the petitioners; (iii) the requirement of establishing the ingredients of abetment under Section 45 of the BNS; (iv) the substantial progress of investigation and examination of material witnesses; (v) the absence of material indicating absconding or tampering; (vi) the petitioners’ willingness to cooperate; and (vii) the absence of demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation at this stage, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the 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.

______________

N.Tukaramji, J Date: 18.08.2026

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12956 OF 2026