Gunti Manohar vs 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 anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as the accused in FIR No.352 of 2026 on the file of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”).

Heard Mr.Sanjeev Reddy Gillella, 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 wife of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and, together with his personal savings, advanced amounts of Rs.1,44,00,000/- to her brother, Rs.27,23,000/- to the petitioner, and Rs.10,00,000/- to the other accused. It is alleged that, despite repeated demands for repayment, neither the petitioner nor the other accused returned the amounts so advanced. The complaint further states that the petitioner categorically refused to repay the money and allegedly told the deceased that they would not return any amount and that he could “do whatever he wanted.” According to the prosecution, the deceased, being under severe mental distress and agony on account of the non-repayment of the amounts advanced, ultimately committed suicide by hanging. Based on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioner which would disclose any act of abetment or active participation in aiding or instigating the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and that, even accepting the allegations in the complaint at their face value, the accusation is limited to the alleged refusal to repay the amount borrowed from the deceased. Such an allegation, by itself, in the absence of any material indicating the requisite intention to provoke, instigate, or intentionally aid the deceased in committing suicide, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's conduct, in particular, caused immense mental distress to the deceased, which ultimately drove him to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It is further contended that a suicide note has been recovered during the course of the investigation, wherein the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the investigation is still in progress and that ten witnesses have been examined thus far. According to the prosecution, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and comprehensive investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 45 of the BNS. It is well settled that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be prima facie material demonstrating a positive and proximate act on the part of the accused amounting to instigation, intentional aid, or active participation, coupled with the requisite mens rea to drive or compel the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, refusal to discharge a civil liability, or the existence of a financial dispute, in the absence of intentional conduct that can reasonably be said to have left the deceased with no option but to take the extreme step, would not ordinarily satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that there must exist a clear nexus between the conduct of the accused and the commission of suicide, and that the element of mens rea and a direct or proximate act of instigation are indispensable to sustain the charge of abetment. (See: Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144; M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626).

At the same time, it is equally well settled that, while considering an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor to appreciate the evidence as if conducting a trial. The veracity of the prosecution case and the precise role, if any, played by the petitioner are matters to be determined upon completion of the investigation and, if necessary, during trial.

The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS are now well settled. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a balance between safeguarding the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The relevant considerations include, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of absconding, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and the overall interests of justice. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against routine arrests and held that arrest is not to be made merely because it is lawful to do so.

In the present case, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, his expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the material presently available on record, this Court does not find any compelling circumstance demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. In the absence of such circumstances, and keeping in view the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is 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.