1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 31 of 2026 of Peruru Police Station, Mulugu District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr. Kodari Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased had earlier married a person with whom she had two children. Subsequently, due to differences between them, she separated from him and had been living with Kata Mahesh/LW-1 for about 5 to 5½ years, during which period they had one male child. It is stated that, in March 2026, Kata Mahesh was sentenced to undergo seven years of imprisonment in connection with an earlier case and was accordingly lodged in jail. It is further alleged that, during the absence of Kata Mahesh, the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 followed the deceased and subjected her to continuous mental and physical harassment, allegedly compelling or pressuring her to fulfil their demands.

               4.2. It is stated that the deceased informed Kata Mahesh about the alleged harassment during her visit to him in jail. After his release in July 2026, Kata Mahesh allegedly warned the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 not to follow or harass the deceased. However, notwithstanding such warning, the petitioners allegedly continued to harass her, and the alleged acts of harassment became more severe, including threats to the deceased. It is further alleged that the deceased repeatedly informed her family members about the said harassment and expressed her distress before them.

               4.3. The further case of the de facto complainant is that, owing to the continuous harassment, mental agony, and humiliation allegedly suffered by the deceased, she, on 26.08.2026, consumed Paraquat pesticide when nobody was present in the house. She was thereafter shifted for treatment to the Government Hospital, Eturunagaram, and subsequently to the Area Hospital, Mulugu. She was thereafter referred to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where she succumbed to her condition while undergoing treatment. The father of the deceased subsequently lodged a police report, requesting that necessary legal action be taken against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2. On the basis of the allegations contained therein, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned counsel, the FIR does not disclose any specific, direct, or proximate act of intentional aid or instigation attributable to the petitioners, so as to constitute the offence under Section 108 of the BNS. It is contended that the allegations are general in nature and do not disclose any immediate act or conduct on the part of the petitioners having a proximate nexus with the deceased taking the extreme step of consuming pesticide. It is further submitted that the deceased was in a live-in relationship with Kata Mahesh, who had been convicted under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years of imprisonment, and that any mental distress suffered by the deceased, if at all, could have arisen from her domestic and personal circumstances. According to the petitioners, there is no material establishing a direct causal nexus between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the deceased’s suicide.

               5.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the de facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased, was residing approximately 400 kilometres away from the place of occurrence and was not an eyewitness to the alleged acts of harassment, following, or threats. It is, therefore, contended that his allegations are based upon information allegedly conveyed to him by the deceased or other family members. The petitioners also point out that neither the deceased nor her family members had lodged any prior complaint in respect of the alleged harassment. It is further contended that the deceased consumed pesticide on 26.08.2026, died on 29.08.2026, and the complaint was lodged only on 30.08.2026. According to the petitioners, the said delay, coupled with the absence of any prior complaint, constitutes a circumstance requiring consideration while examining the prayer for anticipatory bail.

               5.3. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are predominantly oral in nature, that no discovery or recovery is required from the petitioners, and that custodial interrogation is, therefore, unnecessary. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents, and undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Placing reliance upon the protection of personal liberty, learned counsel accordingly seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the allegations against the petitioners are specific and serious in nature. He submitted that the deceased, who was living with Kata Mahesh, was allegedly subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the period of Mahesh’s absence on account of his imprisonment from March 2026. It is submitted that the accused allegedly followed the deceased, telephoned her, threatened her, made demands for money and communication, attempted to control her movements, and subjected her to harassment according to their wishes. It is further submitted that the deceased had allegedly informed Kata Mahesh and her family members about the harassment and had expressed her inability to bear the same. According to the prosecution, even after Mahesh was released in July 2026 and allegedly warned the petitioners not to harass the deceased, the petitioners continued their alleged acts of harassment, which thereafter became more intense.

               6.2. The prosecution further relies upon an alleged video statement recorded by the deceased while she was undergoing treatment. According to the prosecution, in the said statement, the deceased specifically named the petitioners and narrated the alleged acts of harassment and threats allegedly committed by them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, while undergoing such distress, the deceased thereafter consumed pesticide and subsequently died while undergoing treatment. According to the prosecution, the persistent harassment, threats, and intimidation allegedly inflicted by the petitioners caused severe mental agony to the deceased and had a proximate connection with her taking the extreme step of consuming pesticide, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS.

               6.3. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 2 has previous criminal history in two cases, namely, Crime No. 20 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Crime No. 25 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said criminal history is a relevant circumstance for consideration while examining the present petition. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the Investigating Agency is required to collect further material and evidence. Having regard to the specific allegations against the petitioners, the statement attributed to the deceased naming the petitioners, the alleged continuous nature of the harassment, the circumstances preceding the deceased’s suicide, and the criminal history attributed to petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. Section 108 of the BNS provides for punishment for abetment of suicide, while Section 45 of the BNS defines “abetment” to include instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, and intentional aiding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held, while interpreting the corresponding provisions under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, that mere harassment, by itself, is insufficient to constitute abetment of suicide unless it is accompanied by a positive act of instigation or intentional aid having a proximate nexus with the commission of suicide. In Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that a continuous course of conduct may, in an appropriate case, constitute abetment where such conduct creates a situation that drives the deceased to commit suicide, provided that the requisite proximity and culpable conduct are established.

9. In the present case, the prosecution attributes specific acts to the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2, including following the deceased, subjecting her to telephonic harassment, issuing threats, making demands, and interfering with her movements. The prosecution also relies upon the alleged video statement recorded while the deceased was undergoing treatment, wherein she is stated to have named both the petitioners and narrated the alleged acts of harassment and threats. According to the prosecution, such conduct continued notwithstanding the warning allegedly given by Kata Mahesh after his release in July 2026, following which the deceased consumed pesticide on 26.08.2026. Thus, the allegations of the prosecution, taken at their face value for the limited purpose of considering the present application, disclose an alleged continuing course of conduct extending up to a period proximate to the suicide. Consequently, at this stage, the allegations cannot be characterised as wholly vague, general, or remote, so as to warrant their exclusion from consideration while examining the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

10. The contentions of the petitioners that the de facto complainant was not an eyewitness to the alleged acts of harassment, that there was delay in lodging the complaint, that no complaint had been lodged earlier, and that the deceased was facing personal and domestic difficulties are matters that require appreciation of the evidence. At the present stage, these circumstances cannot, by themselves, conclusively displace the prosecution case, particularly when the prosecution relies upon an alleged statement of the deceased herself implicating the petitioners. At the same time, the authenticity, admissibility, reliability, and evidentiary value of the said statement are matters to be examined in accordance with law on the basis of the complete material and evidence. No final conclusion regarding the same is warranted in the present proceedings for anticipatory bail.

11. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into consideration, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, their antecedents, the requirements of the investigation, and other circumstances relevant to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. In the present case, the investigation is still in progress; specific allegations have been attributed to both petitioners; the prosecution relies upon the alleged statement of the deceased; and petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 2 is stated to have criminal antecedents. Although such antecedents, by themselves, cannot establish the commission of the offence alleged in the present case, they constitute a relevant circumstance that may be taken into consideration while exercising discretion. At the same time, this Court is conscious that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, it is neither required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence nor to record any finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. The assessment at this stage is necessarily prima facie and limited to determining whether the circumstances justify extending the discretionary protection against arrest.

12. In the totality of the circumstances, and particularly having regard to the specific allegations of continuous harassment and threats; the alleged statement of the deceased naming the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2; the allegation that such conduct continued notwithstanding the warning allegedly given by her live-in partner, Kata Mahesh; the alleged proximity between the conduct attributed to the petitioners and the deceased consuming pesticide; and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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 influenced by the Investigating Officer and trial Court on dealing with the case on its merits. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.