Telangana High Court
Langisetty Gangadhar vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5417 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the
petitioner/accused seeking bail in Crime No.506 of 2025 of
Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto
complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is having only
one daughter Laxmi Priya. While pursuing B.Tech., she fell in
love with the petitioner and he performed marriage about 18
months back to her daughter and the petitioner and both moved
to Kukatpally and doing software jobs and his daughter was six
months pregnant. The petitioner developed illegal relationship
with another lady, due to which, he has been harassing, abusing
and beating his daughter and the same was informed by his
daughter to him. When his daughter asked the petitioner about
illegal relationship with another lady, the petitioner stated that
"if you want to live with me, live, otherwise go and die". On
11.04.2025 at about 9.30 hours, the de facto complainant got
know that his daughter died by hanging. Basing on the said
complaint, the present crime was registered.
3. Heard Mr. Y. Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely
implicated in the present crime. Even according to the
allegations made in the complaint as well as in the remand
report, the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS are not
attracted against the petitioner and the other offence i.e., Section
85 of the BNS is concerned, the same is punishable with an
imprisonment of less than seven years. The petitioner never
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Mere abusing the
word that 'go and die' does not come within the purview of
Section 108 of the BNS. He further submitted that at the time of
incident, the petitioner was not present in house. Moreover, the
brother of the deceased was residing in the house of the
petitioner. The petitioner in his confessional statement
specifically stated that the brother of the deceased was also in
his house and prior to the incident, the brother and parents of
the deceased mediated the petitioner and the deceased. The
petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2025 and since then, he has
been in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready and willing to
cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the
conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence,
the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.
4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments
1. Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2013 in Jangam
Ravinder v. The State of A.P., Rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
2. Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 1; and
3. Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2025 in Ayyub &
Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.,
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioner has committed a grave offence. At the
instigation of the petitioner only, the deceased committed
suicide. The investigation is at threshold. At this stage, the
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. He further submitted
that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the petitioner and deceased got married in
the year 2023 and the deceased was six months pregnant at time
of incident. There is specific allegation mentioned in the
complaint that the petitioner developed illegal relationship with
another lady, due to which, disputes arose between the
petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner harassed the
deceased physically and mentally, abused and provoked her to
commit suicide, due to which, the deceased committed suicide.
7. In Swamy Prahaladdas supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that mere words spoken in a moment of anger cannot be
deemed sufficient to instigate suicide under Section 306 of the
IPC. The appellant was summoned to trial based on a remark
made during a quarrel with the deceased, who later committed
suicide. The Court determined that the appellant's words were
casual and typical of heated arguments, lacking the necessary
intent to provoke such an extreme action. The Court allowed the
appeal, overturning the lower court's orders and emphasizing
that not all provocative remarks can be legally interpreted as
instigation to suicide.
8. In Ayyub supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
issue of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC,
emphasizing that to establish such an offence, there must be
clear evidence of specific abetment by the accused with the
intention to instigate the victim to commit suicide. The case
arose from the tragic deaths of Ziaul Rahman and Tanu, who
were linked by a suspected relationship. Subsequent, Ziaul's
death, Ayyub lodged an FIR against several individuals for
assault, while respondent No.2, accused and others of abetting
Tanu's suicide by humiliating her. The Court quashed the
proceedings against the appellants and ordered a reinvestigation
into Tanu's death by a Special Investigation Team to uncover the
true circumstances surrounding the case.
9. In Jangam Ravinder supra, the Division Bench of this
Court held that the appellant was convicted by the Special
Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 306 and 417 of the
IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
following the suicide of a young woman from the Nayakapu
caste. The case arose after the appellant, a toddy tapper,
allegedly told the deceased to "consume poison and die" upon
learning that he was going to marry another woman, leading her
to ingest pesticide.
10. The above said judgments are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case on hand, on the ground that there
are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he was
involved in illegal relationship with another lady, due to which,
the petitioner harassed the deceased both physically and
mentally, even though the deceased was six months pregnant.
These actions are alleged to have instigated and provoked the
deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Section
108 of the BNS are not applicable to the petitioner is not tenable
under law.
11. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the investigation is under progress and the charge sheet has not
been filed. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage, especially when the investigation is under progress.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 24.04.2025
mar
