The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not warranted and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 outweighs the interests of investigation, provided the accused cooperates with the law.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is accused in Crime No. 18 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), on the file of the Station House Officer, Hathnoor Police Station, Sangareddy District.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.01.2026 at about 12:00 PM, the petitioner, along with two others, went to the residence of the deceased, verbally abused her in filthy language, and physically assaulted her by beating and throwing her to the ground. Distressed by the incident, at about 03:00 PM, the deceased went inside her house, consumed insecticide, and committed suicide. Though she was shifted to the hospital, she succumbed. Based on the report lodged by the son of the deceased, the present crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of abetment to suicide are baseless. It is contended that the petitioner and others, being relatives of the deceased, had gone to her house only to enquire about her well being and to advise her to take care of her grandmother, and that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment. It is further contended that there is no material to establish any instigation, intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the petitioner in the commission of suicide. Hence, it is prayed that this Court, upon consideration of the material on record, may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P , 2021 SCC Online SC 737 wherein it was held that there must be a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, compelling the person to commit suicide. Thus, in the absence of any such material and as the petitioner is ready to co-oprate with the investigation, prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie establishes both the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the petitioner therein. It was contended that the acts attributed to the petitioner bear a proximate nexus to the consequential death, whether by suicide or otherwise, and that further investigation is actively underway to ascertain the complete factual matrix.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. It was also submitted that, in the event anticipatory bail is granted, stringent conditions must be imposed to ensure the petitioner’s full cooperation with the investigating agency. On these grounds, dismissal of the petition was sought.

I have carefully perused the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the prima facie material placed before this Court, and the ingredients of the offences alleged, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial detention of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has not placed any specific material indicating that the petitioner is likely to abscond or evade the process of law.

At this juncture, it is apposite to mention settled position of law that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced with the interests of investigation, and that arrest should not be made in a routine manner. In the present case, considering the absence of any compelling circumstances necessitating custodial interrogation at this stage, and balancing