Motam Sai Satya Saikrishna @ Satish 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 anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in FIR No.271 of 2026 of Mokila Police Station, Future City District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr.J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and his wife committed suicide. The messages recovered from the deceased's mobile phone allegedly reveal continuous harassment, mental pressure, abusive behaviour, and financial disputes involving accused Nos. 1 to 3 against both the deceased. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had also demanded money in connection with the alleged treasure trove. Based on the complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and is in no way involved in the alleged offence. He further contends that neither the complaint nor the messages allegedly recovered from the deceased's mobile phone contain any specific mateirals against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither instigated nor intentionally aided or abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased in any manner, and no such role is even prima facie discernible from the material available on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and earns his livelihood by performing ceremonial religious rituals (pooja). In that capacity, he had been performing one such ritual at the instance of the deceased in a temple for the welfare of their family. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, has a permanent place of residence, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner's role surfaced during the course of investigation, which is still pending. It is submitted that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded money in connection with the alleged treasure trove, and that the pressure exerted by the accused ultimately drove the deceased to commit suicide. It is further contended that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation and that, if granted anticipatory bail, he may not cooperate with the investigating agency. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, subjected the deceased and his wife to continuous harassment, thereby driving them to commit suicide. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded money in connection with the alleged treasure trove. However, except for the said allegation, there is no material on record disclosing any specific overt act, direct instigation, intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the petitioner that could prima facie constitute abetment of suicide within the meaning of Sections 107 and 108 of the BNS. The material presently available does not indicate that the petitioner had engaged in any wilful conduct intended to provoke, incite, or compel the deceased to take the extreme step, or that the deceased was left with no other reasonable alternative except to commit suicide.

It is well settled that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must exist prima facie material demonstrating either instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, coupled with the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused. Mere allegations of harassment, financial disputes, or strained interpersonal relations, without a proximate and live link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide, would not, by themselves, attract the offence of abetment.

In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence of abetment and an active or direct act which leaves the deceased with no option except to commit suicide. Similarly, in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, the Supreme Court reiterated that the element of instigation or intentional aid must be evident and that the conduct alleged should be of such intensity as to create circumstances in which the deceased is left with no alternative except to end his or her life. Likewise, in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, the Court observed that ordinary wear and tear of life, routine discord, or mere allegations of harassment, in the absence of a positive act of incitement or intentional aid, would not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide.

It is equally well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to balance the individual's right to personal liberty against the interest of a fair and effective investigation. The Court is expected to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of his fleeing from justice, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an important facet of the protection of personal liberty and that such relief should not be denied merely because the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, unless the facts of the case warrant custodial interrogation or otherwise justify denial of the discretionary relief.

Having regard to the aforesaid settled principles of law and their application to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that, at this stage, the material collected during the investigation discloses only the allegation that the petitioner demanded money in connection with the alleged treasure trove and there is no prima facie material attributing any specific overt act, direct instigation, or intentional aid to the petitioner so as to establish the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Further the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, has a permanent place of residence, and there is no material to indicate that he is likely to abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. Further, the prosecution has not placed any convincing material before this Court to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of an effective investigation. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a fit case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A). The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mokila Police Station, Future City Commissionerate, on or before 14.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner 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 Station House Officer on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

The petitioner shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein.

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

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.