IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 OF 2026 DATE :25.02.2026 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 R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and he is falsely implicated in this case. The FIR does not disclose any specific overt acts against the petitioner. Petitioner is living on a petty income and he has not lent any amount to the deceased. Petitioner is a friend of deceased and A.1. The deceased requested A.1 for lending money to Palle Anil who has been playing online game. Being a common frined petitioner used to meet deceased frequently and on 16.12.2025 on coming to know that A.1 went to the shop of deceased, petitioner went to the deceased to talk to convince the deceased and A.1. He further contended the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. Further, true facts are not disclosed by the complainant. A.4 in this case was already granted bail. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner along with others have abetted the deceased No.1 for not repaying the amount taken by him. In the suicide note also the name of the petitioner herein is mentioned by the deceased. Due to the said abatement, not only the son of complainant but his daughter-in-law also committed suicide. As such the allegations against the petitioner are very severe in nature. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and the material on record, it is seen that except stating that investigation is completed, there are no changed circumstances to consider this application from the earlier bail application. Further at the instigation of petitioner, the wife and husband have committed suicide and in the suicide note, the name of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as the accused are responsible for their death. Hence, in view of the severity of incident, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition