Maleti Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as sole Accused in FIR No.109 of 2026 on the file of Kothagudem III Town police station for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. G. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed YasarMamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused married the deceased on 30.04.2017, and they were blessed with two daughters, aged about eight years and nineteen months, respectively. It is alleged that during their matrimonial life, the petitioner subjected the deceased to continuous mental and physical harassment. On 29.05.2026, the deceased allegedly informed her mother over the phone that she was quarrelling with the petitioner and requested her mother to take her and the children to her parental home. Subsequently, when her parents came to know that their daughter had been admitted to the hospital for treatment, they reached the Government General Hospital, Kothagudem. The deceased is stated to have informed them that the petitioner had been mentally torturing her, creating problems and pressurising her to die. It is alleged that, she was unable to bear the harassment, on the same day, at about 10:30 a.m., she consumed rat poison. While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the effects thereof on 30.05.2026. On the report lodged by her mother, who is the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime following the unfortunate death of his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner married the deceased and that they were blessed with two daughters, who are presently under his care. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier withdrawn his application for anticipatory bail before this Court, as a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings and his subsequent application before the Sessions Court were then pending. It is submitted that the said proceedings have since been dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, nor is there any positive act on the part of the petitioner having a proximate nexus with the deceased’s suicide. According to the learned Counsel, the allegations of mental and physical harassment are vague, omnibus and bereft of specific instances of cruelty. It is further submitted that the suicide note also does not attribute any specific act of instigation, cruelty or intentional aid to the petitioner.

Placing reliance upon Ayyub and others v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 168; Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; and Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, learned Counsel submits that mere matrimonial discord or allegations of harassment, in the absence of continuous and grave cruelty or a positive act of instigation or intentional aid having a proximate nexus with the suicide, would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.

It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, as no recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned Counsel also submits that there is a suicide note of the deceased in which no allegation has been attributed against the petitioner and, significantly, the deceased expressed a desire that the children should remain with the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner is the sole caregiver of his two minor daughters and that his arrest would seriously prejudice their welfare.

Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident and is not likely to abscond. It is also contended that there is no reasonable possibility of his tampering with the prosecution evidence, particularly as the material witnesses are stated to be the family members of the deceased and the neighbours. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the possibility of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution evidence does not arise. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner is the sole accused in the crime and that, as per the report, the deceased consumed rat poison and ultimately succumbed to the same on account of the harassment allegedly meted out to her by the petitioner. It is submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the statements of ten listed witnesses, who allegedly support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that additional evidence remains to be collected.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged suicide note was never produced or relied upon in the earlier proceedings, including before this Court, and therefore the very existence of such a suicide note is doubtful. It is contended that, if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood of his threatening the de facto complainant and influencing the other prosecution witnesses, besides tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

The allegations in the complaint disclose that the petitioner and the deceased were married for about nine years and had two minor daughters. The prosecution case rests substantially upon the allegation that the petitioner subjected the deceased to mental and physical harassment and ultimately drove her to consume rat poison. The complaint further relies upon the alleged oral statement made by the deceased to her parents while she was undergoing treatment, as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. However, at this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or determine the truthfulness of the allegations. The consideration is essentially confined to whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and whether the statutory parameters governing the grant of anticipatory bail are satisfied.

A careful consideration of the complaint and the material placed before this Court prima facie indicates that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature, alleging continuous mental and physical harassment, without disclosing any specific overt act immediately preceding the commission of suicide. Except for the allegations that the petitioner was creating problems and allegedly pressurising the deceased to die, there is no material, at this stage, demonstrating any definite act of instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy on the part of the petitioner.

The legal position is well settled that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be the requisite mens rea to instigate or intentionally aid the commission of suicide, coupled with a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the suicide.

Further, the principles governing the exercise of power for grant of anticipatory bail have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, wherein the Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail is intended to protect personal liberty and is required to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

At this juncture, the Court cannot also ignore the undisputed circumstance that the petitioner is presently the sole surviving parent responsible for the care, upbringing and welfare of his two minor daughters, aged about eight years and nineteen months, respectively. Though this circumstance, by itself, cannot be determinative of the petitioner’s entitlement to anticipatory bail, it is certainly a relevant consideration while balancing the competing interests of an effective investigation and the personal liberty of the petitioner, particularly when custodial interrogation is not shown to be essential. At the same time, appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure that the investigation proceeds unhindered.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the absence of specific material at this stage disclosing prima facie instigation or intentional aid, the absence of criminal antecedents, the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, 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.