Demand for lawful debt repayment, without evidence of harassment or criminal intent, does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

ORDER :

TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.

Heard, Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State.

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused Nos.5 and 6 on bail in Crime.No.335 of 2025 of Proddatur Rural Police Station, YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Section 108 r/w 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased namely V.Pedda Obula Reddy, who is the husband of the De facto complainant, had been running an oil mill. During the course of his business, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the Accused No.1, Rs.6,00,000/- from Accused No.2 and Rs.4,00,000/- from Accused No.3. Subsequently, as he sustained loss in the business and in view of his health issues, the deceased could not repay the debt to them. All the Accused have been pressurizing the deceased to repay the amount due to which, the deceased suffered lot of mental agony and was admitted in Suresh Hospital, Proddatur. After discharging from the said hospital, the Accused No.1 called the deceased to his office and made an agreement with him for repayment of Rs.11,00,000/- due to him and forced the deceased to sign on the said agreement. While so, on 04.08.2025 at about 07.00 p.m., Accused Nos. 4 to 6 came to the house of the deceased stating that they were sent by the Accused No.1, demanded him to repay the debt, for which, the deceased told them that he would talk to the Petitioner /Accused No.1 on the next day. However, Accused Nos.4 to 6 humiliated him stating “Dabbulu Kattaleni Bathuku Endhuku, Ee Bathuku Bathike Kante Chaavadam Melu”. Unable to bear with such harassment, on 05.08.2025 the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison pills. Based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, the present case has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under Section 108 read with 3(5) of BNS .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 would submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are omnibus and baseless. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has been doing business in supplying oil seeds and in that connection, he supplied oil seeds worth Rs.11,00,000/- to the deceased on credit basis. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is merely a creditor of the deceased arising out of a commercial transaction. It is submitted that there is no agreement executed by the deceased as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that, demand of repayment of a lawful debt without any pressure or criminal intent does not attract the offence under Section 108 of BNS . Learned counsel would further submit that there is no mens rea to commit the alleged offence and there is no active or direct act on the part of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 which led the deceased to commit suicide. It is submitted that as seen from the contents of FIR, the deceased’s extreme step was due to his financial difficulties only, but not due to harassment of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that recovery of debt or insistence on repayment, in the absence of element of criminal intimidation, harassment or illegal compulsion, cannot by itself constitute abetment of suicide.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that though the deceased was in hospital, the Petitioner along with other Accused humiliated him demanding the amount. It is submitted that the investigation is at nascent stage, as such there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence in case, the Petit