Guguloth Sachin 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 petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.160 of 2026 on the file of the Tekulapalli Police Station, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the elder son of the de facto complainant was in a relationship with Accused No.1 and intended to marry her. However, the petitioner and the other accused, who are close relatives of Accused No.1, allegedly discouraged the deceased from marrying her. It is further alleged that, on 19.07.2026, Accused No.1 informed the deceased that her marriage had been fixed and, while denying their earlier relationship, threatened him and told him to die. She also allegedly told him that, if he called her, the petitioner and the other accused would kill him. According to the prosecution, the threats and conduct of the accused caused the deceased to suffer severe depression. It is alleged that, on 20.07.2026, the deceased committed suicide, leaving behind a suicide note and a selfie video in which he attributed his decision to end his life to the threats allegedly made by the petitioner and the other accused. On the basis of the said report, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner denied the allegations and submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s name does not find mention in the suicide note and that, apart from the allegations made by the prosecution, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner demonstrating his abetment of, or active involvement in abetting, the suicide of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 had been taken into custody but were subsequently released on regular bail. It was also submitted that, even according to the prosecution, the relevant material has already been collected by the Investigating Agency and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner concerning his acts of discouraging and threatening the deceased. It was contended that, owing to the conduct and threats allegedly made by all the accused, the deceased suffered depression and ultimately committed suicide. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation discloses the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It was further submitted that, twelve witnesses had been examined and that certain aspects of the investigation were still pending. Further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the suicide of the deceased. The de facto complainant has specifically named the petitioner along with Accused No.2, alleging that they repeatedly discouraged the deceased from continuing his relationship with Accused No.1 and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that Accused No.1, while threatening the deceased with dire consequences, also referred to the petitioner and the other accused and warned him against contacting her.

Under Section 45 of the BNS, abetment includes instigation, conspiracy in the circumstances contemplated therein, or intentional aid, while Section 108 BNS prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court has consistently held that abetment of suicide requires the requisite mens rea and an active or direct act of instigation or intentional aid; mere harassment or other conduct, without the necessary intention, would not by itself constitute abetment.

At this stage, however, the allegations of repeated discouragement and threats attributed to the petitioner require further investigation, particularly as to their nature, context and effect and whether they satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment. Accordingly, this Court refrains from expressing any final opinion on the merits or the petitioner’s ultimate criminal liability.

Pertinently, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right to personal liberty with the interests of a fair and effective investigation. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation are relevant considerations. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, has reiterated the relevance of these factors in exercising jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. The absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation is relevant, though it cannot, by itself, determine the grant of anticipatory bail.

In the present case, the prosecution would ultimately have to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 45 of the BNS, namely, that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide in a manner recognised by law. The investigation is still pending and the allegations require further examination. At the same time, Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are alleged to have been involved in the same set of circumstances, have already been arrested and released on regular bail.

The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. There is no material presently indicating a likelihood of his absconding, tampering with evidence or interfering with the investigation, nor has any compelling necessity for his custodial interrogation been demonstrated. Considering these circumstances, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the fact that the co-accused have already been granted bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in his favour. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate liability of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station on or before 09.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.