Guruvu Ramesh @ Guru Ramesh v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8195 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 Between:
Guruvu Ramesh @ Guru Ramesh
...Petitioner/Accused
AND The State of Telangana.
...Respondent
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2.
The petitioner is arrayed as sole accused in FIR No.41 of 2026 on the file of Manopad Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, "BNS").
3.
Heard Mr.G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState. 4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.04.2026, the Station Superintendent, Gadwal Railway Station, submitted a report stating that an unidentified male person had suddenly trespassed onto the railway track and was run over by Train No. 17024. On the basis of the said report, a case was initially registered under Section 194 of the BNSS.
4.2. Subsequently, on 02.04.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a report alleging that on 29.03.2026 at about 9.00 a.m., while the deceased was operating an agricultural harvesting machine in certain agricultural fields, the petitioner insisted that the machine be deployed for harvesting his field. This allegedly resulted in a verbal altercation between the petitioner and the deceased, during which the petitioner is stated to have threatened the deceased with dire consequences.
4.3. It is further alleged that on 01.04.2026, while the deceased was engaged in harvesting operations in the
agricultural field of one Md. Rafi, the petitioner again confronted the deceased, abused him on the ground that the tractors were passing through his field, and reiterated his threats. According to the de facto complainant, the deceased, being unable to bear the humiliation and mental distress allegedly caused by the conduct of the petitioner, became depressed and ultimately committed suicide. On the basis of the said report, the respondent police altered the provision of law and arrayed the petitioner as an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide and affray. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly baseless and that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.
It is further contended that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide. 5.2. Learned counsel submits that the alleged altercation took place on 29.03.2026, whereas the deceased committed suicide only on 01.04.
lapse of time. It is further submitted that there is neither any allegation nor any material indicating active instigation, intentional aid, or deliberate creation of circumstances compelling the deceased to take the extreme step. Significantly, no suicide note has been recovered implicating the petitioner.
5.3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has throughout expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for granting anticipatory bail. 6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations made in the complaint are specific in nature and disclose a prima facie case warranting a thorough investigation. It is contended that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and make it difficult for the Investigating Agency to effectively secure the petitioner's presence
whenever required. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 7.
Mr. E.V. Pushpa Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, would submit that the complaint dated 02.04.2026 clearly narrates both the incident that allegedly occurred on 29.03.2026 and the subsequent incident on 01.04.2026, during which the petitioner is stated to have abused and threatened the deceased.
According to the learned counsel, these allegations, taken cumulatively, prima facie disclose acts amounting to abetment of suicide and, therefore, require a comprehensive investigation. It is further contended that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may prejudice the prosecution and adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Hence, dismissal of the petition is sought.
8.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
9.
The allegation against the petitioner is that, on account of the altercations that allegedly took place between the petitioner and the deceased on 29.03.2026
and 01.04.2026, coupled with the alleged threats extended by the petitioner, the deceased was driven to commit suicide.
10.
It is well settled that, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must exist material indicating intentional instigation, active participation, or intentional aid on the part of the accused, or conduct creating such circumstances that the deceased is left with no reasonable alternative except to commit suicide. Mere harassment, verbal altercations, casual remarks, or ordinary disputes, unaccompanied by the requisite mens rea and proximate nexus with the act of suicide, would not ordinarily attract the offence of abetment. Further, in Prabhu v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that ordinary wear and tear of life, disputes, or isolated incidents, in the absence of intentional instigation or active aid, would not satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment of suicide. 11.
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position and upon a prima facie consideration of the nature of the
reported offence and the depth of allegations contained in the complaint against the petitioner and the material presently available on record, this Court is of the view that the matter requires further investigation. At the same time, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and there is, at this stage, no material indicating any likelihood of his absconding or evading the investigation. In such circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and extend the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and to adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution.
11.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Manopad Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal on 16.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the
event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.
(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.
(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.
(D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.
12.
It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 02.07.2026 mmr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8195 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 mmr