Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11279
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Satyanarayana Goud alias Satish – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7710 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Veerjala Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon
Anticipatory bail denied due to specific allegations of instigation of suicide supported by a suicide note.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioners seek anticipatory bail for allegations under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pertaining to instigation of suicide - Court observed specific allegations in the suicide note against petitioners. (Paras 3, 6)
(B) Grant of bail - The court reiterated that unless allegations are unfounded, anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious charges such as instigation of suicide - The severity of the allegations and ongoing investigation considered. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were implicated in a suicide case of a businessman who left a suicide note citing the petitioners as instigators, claiming harassment and a monetary dispute as triggers for his suicide.
Findings of Court:
The specific mention of petitioners in the suicide note and evidence of harassment was found sufficient to decline anticipatory bail.
Issues: Whether the allegations are grave enough to warrant the denial of anticipatory bail based on suicide instigation claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that due to the gravity of allegations and specific mentions in the deceased's note, anticipatory bail was not justified.
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of criminal petition and seeking anticipatory bail. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the complaint and allegations of suicide instigation. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding the bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's evaluation of the evidence and decision regarding bail. (Para 6) |
| 5. final ruling of the court on the anticipatory bail request. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS S ’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.336 of 2025 on the file of the Suraram Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( BNS ).
2. Heard Mr.Veerjala Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-
State.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 18.06.2025 at 10-00 hours the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that her husband Meeduddula Muralidhar Reddy is a businessman having partnership for the past 7 years with his friend Satyanarayana Goud (Satish) at Vinayaka Industries, located in Subhash Nagar, Jeedimetla. Every year, when the business accounts were settled, Mr.Satyanarayana Goud used to avoid payment to Muralidhar Reddy for his rightful share under various pretexts. This issue had been continuing the last 4 years. For the 2 months, her husband was not receiving any money owed to him from the business. He had expressed suicidal thoughts to his family members, saying, "I will die" for which her family members counseled him. On 18.06.2025, at around 5.40 AM, her husband went to the penthouse of their residence between 5:40 and 6:00 AM and hanged himself to an iron rod using a green and white towel. This incident was witnessed by Mrs. G. Satyavathi, who resides in the adjacent room of the penthouse. Upon being informed, her family immediately brought him down and taken him in a car to Malla Reddy Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. A suicide note was found in her husband's short pocket, wherein it was mentioned that the reason for his death was Satyanarayana Goud (Satish) and Phani Kumar (Accountant), and also a duty person he had appointed, whose number is 9154676755. He further stated that they mentally harassed him, made him feel worthless, and were the cause of his death. He further wrote that Satyanarayana Goud owed him Rs.30,00,000/- He mentioned that if money comes from the land in the village or from a court case, it should be used for his children's education. He sought forgiveness if he had ever wronged anyone. He advised his children Chinni, Sweety, and Arjun to study well. He also mentioned Raju Bava, Datti Akka, Vani Akka, and Aravindh and Jaya Akka, asking them to pardon him. He asked that Rs.1,00,000 be given to Jaya Akka, stating he owed it. He concluded that this was his dying declaration. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners and the petitioners never instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. The allegations made in the complaint in respect of monetary disputes are civil in nature. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they will abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased committed suici
