Namsani Raju 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 the accused No.1 in FIR No.120 of 2026 on the file of Kataram Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”).

Heard Mr.Kodari Mallikarjun, 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 mother of the deceased lodged a report on 03.07.2026, alleging that her son had previously informed her that he had sent some money to the petitioner through PhonePe and that the lorry bearing No. TS08UG5666 had also been kept with the petitioner. As the petitioner did not return the money and the lorry, the deceased, feeling distressed, consumed pesticide poison and, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the same. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. Even according to the complaint, there are no overt acts or positive acts on the part of the petitioner demonstrating instigation or abetment of the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that, on 09.05.2025, the deceased had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for continuation of the finance vehicle sale agreement under the TVS Credit Finance Scheme, pursuant to which 46 instalments were to be paid. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle, which had been handed over under the said agreement, remained with the petitioner cannot, by itself, be considered a ground for the deceased to have suffered distress. In any event, the alleged failure to return the money or the vehicle does not, by itself, constitute abetment as defined under the BNS. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant, with an ulterior motive, had named and implicated the petitioner in the crime. Nevertheless, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has deep roots in society, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the investigation conducted thus far has revealed that, in the video clip allegedly submitted by the deceased, he stated that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and had also retained the lorry belonging to him. However, the petitioner neither repaid the said amount nor handed over the lorry and is alleged to have stated that the deceased could do whatever he could. It was contended that, in view of these circumstances, the deceased, feeling distressed and worried, committed suicide by consuming pesticide. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still under way and that the presence of the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. Accordingly, he prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he instigated and/or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The alleged basis for such abetment, as stated by the complainant, is that the petitioner neither returned the money allegedly paid by the deceased nor handed over the vehicle belonging to him. The video clip relied upon by the prosecution also refers to the same circumstances. However, the material presently available on record does not disclose any specific overt act or positive act on the part of the petitioner demonstrating his involvement in instigating, aiding, or otherwise compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Mere failure to return the alleged amount or the vehicle, without more, does not, at this stage, disclose a specific act of instigation or abetment.

At the same time, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail. The material circumstances relied upon by the prosecution require appropriate investigation, and the evidentiary value and legal effect of such material are matters that may have to be tested during the course of trial. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding, the possibility of tampering with or influencing witnesses or evidence, and the necessity, if any, of custodial interrogation. It is also well settled that the power of arrest cannot be exercised routinely or mechanically. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest must be justified on the basis of the necessity prescribed by law and that the investigating agency must satisfy the statutory requirements before resorting to arrest and custodial detention.

In the instant case, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, the material presently available on record does not disclose any specific overt act or positive act of the petitioner instigating the deceased's suicide, apart from alleged repayment and keeping the lorry with him. The petitioner is stated to have a permanent abode and has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Further, no compelling circumstance has been demonstrated necessitating the petitioner's custodial interrogation for the purpose of effective investigation.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The grant of such relief, however, shall be subject to conditions designed to secure the petitioner's availability for investigation.

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.