Pendem Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), in connection with Crime No. 94 of 2026 of Pothkapally Police Station, Ramagundam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108, read with 62, 85, 296(b) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

Since the petitioners in both petitions are accused in the same crime and seek analogous relief, both petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Heard Mr.Baglekar Akash Kumar, 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 father of the deceased lodged a report on 07.07.2026, alleging that his deceased daughter was married to accused No.1 and that, within three months of the marriage, the other accused, including the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, subjected her to physical and mental harassment by suspecting her character. It is further alleged that, in this backdrop, about one year prior to the incident, the deceased returned to her parental home, resided there, and joined employment at Suglampalli. On 02.07.2026, at about 10:00 a.m., the accused allegedly visited her workplace, openly questioned her character, and humiliated her. Unable to bear the humiliation, she is stated to have gone into depression and, on 03.07.2026, consumed herbicide poison. Upon learning of the incident, she was shifted to the hospital for treatment; however, she succumbed to the poisoning. Based on the said report, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further pleaded that, even as per the contents of the report, the allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. Except the general allegation that they harassed the deceased by suspecting her character and, on 02.07.2026, insulted and humiliated her, there are no specific allegations, much less any material indicating their active participation in, or abetment of, the commission of suicide. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner/accused No.5, being a Government employee, was on official duty on the relevant date and was not even present at the place of occurrence. As regards petitioner/accused No.4, it is contended that, except for a reference to her name, no specific overt act has been attributed to her. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801, learned counsel contends that, for an offence of abetment of suicide, the material on record must prima facie disclose active involvement of the accused by way of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid facilitating the commission of suicide, which, according to him, is absent in the present case insofar as the petitioners are concerned. He further submits that 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, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. It is contended that, on the relevant date, the petitioners, along with the other accused, without any basis, questioned the deceased's character and subjected her to humiliation. Unable to bear the humiliation and distressed by the circumstances, the deceased allegedly attempted to commit suicide by consuming paraquat poison and, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the same. He further submits that accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been arrested, about 15 witnesses have been examined, and the investigation is still in progress. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for the purpose of an effective investigation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petitions.

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

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that, along with the other accused, they subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental harassment during her stay in the matrimonial home by casting aspersions on her fidelity, which allegedly compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental home. It is further alleged that, on the date of the incident, the petitioners, along with the other accused, visited the deceased’s place of employment and publicly questioned her character, thereby subjecting her to humiliation. According to the prosecution, the said acts ultimately drove the deceased to consume poison, resulting in her death.

At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the rival versions. The Court is required only to ascertain whether, on the basis of the allegations and the material collected thus far, the custodial arrest of the accused is warranted. The correctness, credibility, and evidentiary value of the prosecution material are matters to be tested during investigation and, ultimately, at trial.

It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is required to balance the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty with the societal interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation. The factors that ordinarily weigh with the Court include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and have been consistently reaffirmed in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694. Further the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, emphasized that arrest should not be made as a matter of course and must be justified on objective considerations, particularly where the investigation can proceed without taking the accused into custody.

In the present case, having regard to the allegations, the depth of role attributed to the petitioners, their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of any material suggesting that they are likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses, or tamper with the prosecution evidence and as the prosecution has not demonstrated any compelling necessity for their custodial interrogation at this stage. This Court finds that the petitioners have made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions as would secure their availability for investigation, ensure their cooperation with the investigating agency, and protect the integrity of the prosecution case.

Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A). The petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Pothkapally Police Station, Ramagundam District, on or before 20.08.2026. 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.