Pandula Mounika 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 Accused No.1 in Crime No. 59 of 2026 registered by Dharur Police Station, Vikarabad District, for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent-State.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the daughter of the de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was serving as an AR Constable and was working at the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad. She was residing in a rented room. The petitioner/Accused No.1, who was a co-worker and friend of the deceased, was permitted by the de facto complainant's son to stay in the deceased's room without the knowledge of the complainant or other family members. Subsequently, disputes arose between the petitioner and the son of the de facto complainant, following which the petitioner vacated the premises. Thereafter, on 27.04.2026, the petitioner lodged Crime No.141 of 2026 against the son of the de facto complainant, alleging harassment and exploitation. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the deceased had supported her brother. It is further alleged that on 28.04.2026, when both parties were present at Vikarabad Police Station in connection with the said crime, the petitioner, along with her brother and one Shekar, threatened the deceased that they would ensure that she lost her job and would not allow her to live peacefully. On 29.04.2026, the deceased was found hanging in her rented residence and was declared dead on being shifted to the Government Hospital, Vikarabad. Alleging that the threats and pressure exerted by the petitioner and the other accused drove the deceased to commit suicide, the present crime was registered for the offence of abetment of suicide.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, without attributing any specific overt act constituting abetment of suicide. It is contended that the present case is a counterblast to Crime No.141 of 2026, which had earlier been lodged by the petitioner against the brother of the deceased. It is argued that the mere filing of a criminal complaint cannot amount to abetment of suicide, particularly when the essential ingredients of instigation, conspiracy, intentional aid, and the requisite mens rea are absent. It is further submitted that the deceased was not an accused in the earlier crime, and therefore, the petitioner had no motive to target or harass her. Learned counsel further contends that there is no independent eyewitness or corroborative material to support the prosecution case, which rests solely on the statements of interested witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, is neither likely to abscond nor to tamper with the evidence, and apprehends arrest, which would seriously prejudice her reputation and career. Therefore, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that the investigation, prima facie, reveals that on 28.04.2026, the petitioner and the co-accused threatened the deceased that she would lose her employment and would not be allowed to live, and that the deceased committed suicide on the very next day, thereby establishing a prima facie nexus between the threats and the commission of suicide. It is further submitted that the statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses support the prosecution case. As the investigation is at a crucial stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary to ascertain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and the specific role played by each of the accused. It is also contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may enable the petitioner to influence or intimidate material witnesses and thereby hamper the investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

The gravamen of the allegations is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, allegedly threatened the deceased on 28.04.2026, and that the deceased committed suicide on the following day. However, apart from the allegations made by the de facto complainant and the statements of the deceased's family members, no independent material has been placed before this Court, at this stage, to prima facie establish that the petitioner intentionally instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in the commission of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or threats, in the absence of material disclosing the essential ingredients of abetment, do not, by themselves, attract the offence of abetment of suicide.

It is well settled that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be prima facie material demonstrating instigation, intentional aid, or active participation, coupled with the requisite mens rea, and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the commission of suicide. Mere quarrels, threats, or the initiation of criminal proceedings against a relative of the deceased do not, by themselves, amount to abetment of suicide. In the absence of clear material indicating intentional incitement, the offence under Section 108 of the BNS, cannot be prima facie attracted. In this regard, reference may be made to M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200.

It is also undisputed that the petitioner had earlier lodged Crime No.141 of 2026 against the brother of the deceased. Whether the present crime is a consequence of the earlier complaint, and whether the allegations ultimately satisfy the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS, are matters to be determined during the course of investigation. At this stage, the petitioner's exercise of her legal right to lodge a criminal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as constituting abetment of suicide.

The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are equally well settled. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail is an important safeguard of personal liberty and that the Court is required to strike a balance between protecting individual liberty and ensuring a fair and effective investigation.

Considering that the petitioner is a woman, has no reported criminal antecedents, and that no specific material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation beyond a general assertion, this Court is of the prima facie view that custodial interrogation is not indispensable for the purpose of investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible interference with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions while granting anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.