AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Criminal Petition No. 11910 of 2026 has been filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and Criminal Petition No. 12043 of 2026 has been filed by Accused Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), in connection with Crime No. 278 of 2026 of LMD Colony Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), read with Section 3(5) thereof, seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.
Since both the petitions arise out of the same crime and seek analogous relief, they are being considered together and are accordingly disposed of by this common order.
Heard Mr.S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, lodged a report stating that on 13.07.2026, at about 3:30 p.m., her husband went to one of their cement brick shops, where he found accused Nos. 4 and 5 consuming liquor. When he questioned them, accused Nos. 4 and 5 allegedly criminally intimidated him by threatening to kill him and also damaged his mobile phone. At that juncture, accused No. 2 intervened and assured the deceased that a new mobile phone would be arranged for him on the following day.
It is further alleged that, on 14.07.2026, accused Nos. 1 to 5 conspired together and falsely implicated the deceased in Crime No. 76 of 2026 registered at Gannavaram Police Station for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC/ST Act”). According to the de facto complainant, the deceased was unable to bear the humiliation and harassment resulting from the alleged false implication and became mentally distressed. On the same day, at about 4:00 p.m., he left home in his car. At about 6:00 p.m., the de facto complainant received information that the deceased had poured petrol on himself and set himself ablaze near Mahathmanagar, LMD Colony, close to the MLA Camp Office. He was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing treatment on 23.07.2026. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless and devoid of any factual foundation. He contends that, except for merely naming the petitioners and making a bald allegation of collusion, there are no specific facts or circumstances to indicate any instigation, active involvement, or abetment on the part of the petitioners. He further submits that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners shared any common intention to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased.
It is further contended that a crime was registered against the deceased on 14.07.2026 in connection with the incident that allegedly occurred at about 4:00 p.m., and there is no material on record to indicate that the registration of the said crime was actuated by mala fide intention or that the deceased was falsely implicated by foisting a false case against him. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations regarding the petitioners' role in the alleged abetment of suicide remain vague, omnibus, and wholly unspecific, particularly in the absence of any overt acts attributed to them. Nevertheless, the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the names of the petitioners have been specifically referred to by both the de facto complainant and the deceased in his dying declaration. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that, as of now, eleven witnesses have been examined. According to the prosecution, both the deceased and the de facto complainant have stated that the petitioners, acting in concert, falsely foisted a criminal case against the deceased, thereby causing him mental agony, distress, and depression, which ultimately led to the occurrence. It is contended that the precise role of the petitioners in the alleged abetment of suicide requires thorough investigation and that their custodial interrogation may be necessary for an effective investigation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.
I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the petitioners, acting with a common intention and in furtherance of a concerted design, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The principal allegation against the petitioners is that they conspired to falsely implicate the deceased in a criminal case by invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the SC/ST Act, thereby subjecting him to humiliation, mental agony, and emotional distress. According to the prosecution, the alleged false implication caused severe psychological trauma to the deceased, which ultimately drove him to pour petrol upon himself, set himself ablaze, and later succumb to the burn injuries sustained by him.
At the outset, it is apposite to note that the offence alleged against the petitioners, the prosecution must, at least prima facie, establish the essential ingredients of “abetment” as contemplated under Section 45 of the BNS, namely, (i) instigation to commit the act, (ii) engagement in a conspiracy resulting in the commission of the act, or (iii) intentional aid rendered for the commission of such act. The offence necessarily postulates the existence of the requisite mens rea coupled with a direct or reasonably proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the commission of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, strained relations, financial disputes, or administrative or legal action, however unpleasant, cannot, by themselves, constitute abetment unless the material on record discloses a positive act of incitement, encouragement, or intentional assistance leaving the deceased with no option except to commit suicide.
The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that abetment necessarily involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding him in the commission of an act, and that, in the absence of a positive act on the part of the accused intended to instigate or facilitate the commission of suicide, the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. The Court observed that there must be a clear intention on the part of the accused to provoke, incite, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
Similarly, in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that every act of harassment or ordinary discord cannot amount to abetment of suicide and that there must exist material demonstrating intentional instigation or active participation on the part of the accused. The Court further observed that criminal prosecution under the provision cannot rest upon conjectures or generalized allegations unsupported by specific material disclosing the essential ingredients of abetment.
The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail are equally well settled. Anticipatory bail is a device conceived to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary arrest while simultaneously ensuring an effective and fair investigation. Although the power is extraordinary in nature, it is intended to advance the constitutional guarantee of personal and must be exercised on well-recognized judicial principles.
Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest is not to be effected merely because the law permits it. The power of arrest must be exercised only where it is justified by the requirements of investigation, such as preventing further offences, securing proper investigation, preventing disappearance of evidence, or ensuring the presence of the accused during investigation or trial. The decision serves as a reminder that personal liberty cannot be curtailed routinely or mechanically.
Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, and having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the material presently available on record, and the absence of any prima facie material disclosing specific overt acts attributable to the petitioners constituting instigation, intentional aid, or active participation in the commission of the alleged offence coupled with the petitioners' expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the absence of any material to indicate that they are likely to abscond or evade the process of law, and the failure of the prosecution, at this stage, to demonstrate any compelling circumstances warranting their custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, the interests of justice would be adequately served by extending the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to secure the petitioners' availability during the course of investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.
Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:
(A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, LMD Colony Police Station, Karimnagar District, on or before 18.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer.
The petitioners 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 their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.
The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation.
The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein.
The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they 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.