IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2994 OF 2026 DATE :16.03.2026 Between:

Pappula Rajashekar ….Petitioner/A.2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, …..Respondent/Complainant :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.2 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.220 of 2025 of Bejjanki Police Station, Siddipet District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 21.12.2025, the complainant gave a complaint stating that his elder son Vadlakonda Sriharsha, aged 32, who ran a cloth business in Bejjanki, had borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- at 10% interest from five persons and handed it over to Palle Anil. Thereafter, the lenders continuously harassed and threatened him for repayment. On 16.12.2025, they abused and threatened him at his shop. Disturbed by this, Sriharsha became depressed and on 21.12.2025, he and his wife Rukmini consumed paraquat herbicide at their residence. Rukmini died on the spot, while Sriharsha died later in hospital. A suicide note recovered from the house showed the names of Ravikanti Abhishek @ Abhilash (A1), Pappula Rajashekar (A2), Vangala Bhoopathireddy (A3), Nampelly Srinivas (A4), and Palle Anil (A5) as responsible for his death due to harassment and threats. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case against the accused for the above offence.

3. Heard Sri Mahesh Kosgi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention, and the alleged offence does not attract the ingredients of Section 108 read with Section 3(5) BNS. It is submitted that all other co-accused have already been granted bail and on parity the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. The prosecution case rest mainly on the alleged suicide note, which contains no allegation against the petitioner, nor does it attribute any act of harassment to him. The petitioner has no role in the financial dispute said to be the cause of the incident, has not lent any money, and is implicated only due to his association with A.1. The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide are absent, as there is no material showing instigation or aid by the petitioner. Further investigation is already completed, as such custodial interrogation of the petitioner serves no purpose, and the FIR has been registered mechanically without preliminary enquiry. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner actively participated in lending transactions and continuously harassed the deceased for repayment despite knowing their financial distress, thereby directly responsible to the suicidal deaths. It is argued that the suicide note specifically names the petitioner; witness statements confirm threats and pressure, and documentary evidence such as promissory notes establish his role. Petitioner has been absconding since registration of the crime, deliberately evading arrest and refusing to cooperate with investigation, which disentitles him to anticipatory bail. The co-accused who were granted bail were arrested and thereafter the Court granted bail. Further, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to verify call records, recover further evidence, establish the financial trail, and confront him with co-accused. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hamper investigation. Hence petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.