Dontkale Sachin & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.797 of 2026 of Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Malkajgiri, for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. S. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the deceased lodged a police report alleging that, owing to matrimonial disputes between the deceased and his wife, and as a result of continuous mental harassment by his wife and her relatives, including the petitioner/Accused No. 6, the deceased committed suicide. It is further alleged that, prior to his death, the deceased sent a suicide note through WhatsApp to his brother, specifically naming the persons who had allegedly harassed him, one of whom was the petitioner. Based on the said report, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have no role in the alleged harassment. It is submitted that they are relatives of the deceased's wife and that, except for their names being mentioned in the alleged suicide note, no material has been placed on record to prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS.

Placing reliance on Shenbagavalli and Others v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 987, and Asha Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others, decided on 09.04.2024, learned counsel submits that the offence of abetment of suicide requires proof of intentional instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. He contends that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and general, no specific overt act or role has been attributed to them, and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. He, therefore, prays that anticipatory bail be granted.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners have been specifically named in the suicide note. It is contended that the matrimonial disputes between the deceased and his wife, as well as the factum of suicide, are undisputed, and that the petitioners' involvement surfaced during the investigation on the basis of the suicide note. It is further submitted that the investigation is in progress, the petitioners have not made themselves available for investigation, and their custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. It is also contended that grant of anticipatory bail may result in their non-cooperation with the investigation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

The allegations against the petitioners are that, along with the other accused, including the wife of the deceased, subjected the deceased to continuous mental harassment, which allegedly drove him to commit suicide. The material on record indicates that the petitioners' names surfaced primarily from the alleged suicide note stated to have been sent by the deceased to his brother through WhatsApp prior to his death.

While considering an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is neither required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence nor conduct a mini trial. The object of the provision is to protect personal liberty while ensuring that the investigation remains fair and uninhibited. The Court must, therefore, balance the individual's right to liberty with the societal interest in an effective investigation.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised having regard to factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, antecedents, the possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the necessity for custodial interrogation. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that arrest should be made only when necessary for the purposes of investigation and not merely because it is legally permissible.

In the present case, though the allegation relates to the commission of suicide, the material presently available against the petitioners is substantially confined to their reference in the alleged suicide note. At this stage, no specific material discloses any overt act, intentional instigation, or active participation attributable to the petitioners. Whether the allegations satisfy the ingredients of abetment under Section 108 of the BNSS is a matter for investigation and trial.

12 The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. There is no material to indicate that they are likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The prosecution has also not placed any specific material demonstrating the necessity for their custodial interrogation at this stage. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions to secure their participation in the investigation and protect the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.