Mididhoddi Sujatha 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.4 in Crime No.228 of 2026 on the file of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offence 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 petitioner 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 deceased's family members, the petitioners allegedly assaulted the deceased and, during the altercation, uttered, “Why are you still alive? Die.” Unable to bear the alleged harassment, the deceased is stated to have left a suicide note and thereafter jumped from the seventh floor of Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids. Based on the report lodged by the deceased's daughter, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has never abetted the deceased's suicide. He submits that, on the previous night, the deceased had visited his mother, where an altercation arose between his sister, arrayed as Accused No.2, and the family members concerning the property dispute. During the quarrel, the petitioner is alleged to have uttered the words, “Why are you still alive? Die.”

It is contended that, even if the allegation is accepted at face value, the same does not satisfy the essential ingredients of “abetment” under Section 45 of the BNS. The petitioner is stated to have been implicated principally on the basis of the alleged suicide note and the longstanding property dispute. The alleged words, according to counsel, were uttered in the heat of a domestic quarrel and do not disclose any intentional act facilitating or instigating the suicide.

Learned counsel submits that it is well settled that a mere exhortation to “go and die” during a quarrel does not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. He further submits that, as per the complaint, the deceased left his workplace and returned to his residence, and no subsequent circumstance is alleged indicating any intentional act on the petitioner's part to facilitate or instigate the suicide.

It is further submitted that this court having considered the allegations granted anticipatory bail to the accused Nos. 1 to 3, on the parity and as the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, submitting that the conduct of the petitioner has caused severe mental agony to the deceased, who, allegedly finding no other option due to the harassment, committed suicide. This aspect is stated to be specifically reflected in the suicide note.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further admits that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were granted anticipatory bail by this court and submits that seven witnesses have been examined and the investigation is still in progress. He contends that the petitioner's presence may be necessary for custodial interrogation and for an effective and comprehensive investigation. On these grounds, dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition is sought.

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

Having considered the rival submissions and the material presently placed on record, the allegations against the petitioner principally comprise the alleged utterance, “Why are you still alive? Die.”, made during a property-related quarrel, and the reference to the petitioner in the suicide note. Even if the alleged utterance is accepted at face value, the material presently disclosed does not prima facie indicate any subsequent positive act of instigation, intentional aid, or other conduct attributable to the petitioner demonstrating the requisite mens rea to abet the suicide. Such an utterance, particularly when made in the course of an altercation, cannot, by itself, be equated with “instigation” within the meaning of Section 45 of the BNS.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1089, establish that words uttered in the heat of anger or during a quarrel, absent the requisite intention that the consequence should follow, do not by themselves constitute abetment. There must be a positive act, accompanied by the requisite mens rea, having a proximate nexus with the suicide.

The suicide note is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance requiring investigation. However, mere reference to the petitioner therein, without supporting circumstances demonstrating intentional instigation or intentional aid, cannot by itself conclusively establish abetment. Its evidentiary value, including its contents, context and correlation with the other material, is ultimately a matter for investigation and, if necessary, trial.

The plea that custodial interrogation is necessary, without specific circumstances demonstrating such necessity, cannot by itself justify denial of anticipatory bail. The investigation can be safeguarded by appropriate conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, appear as and when required, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The grant of anticipatory bail to Accused Nos.1 to 3 is also a relevant consideration on the question of parity, subject to there being no distinguishing material showing a more specific or aggravated role attributable to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the allegation, the context in which the alleged words were uttered, the absence of any presently disclosed subsequent overt act indicating intentional instigation or aid, the aforesaid principles governing abetment of suicide, and the grant of anticipatory bail to the similarly situated co-accused, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for protection under Section 482 of the BNSS, subject to appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.4 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.