1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in connection with Crime No.393 of 2026 of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 108 read with 62 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Jithender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State and Sri Nimma Narayana for respondent No.2-Complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as seen from the allegations it is clear that the de facto complainant created a false complaint to extort more money from accused No.1-K.Dasu. As seen from the FIR along with the complaint, it is clear that the allegations made against petitioner No.1-accused No.2 are vague and lacks material particulars which did not attract the sections as alleged in the FIR. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 27.07.2026 and were produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to receive notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the police without following the mandatory provisions has illegally arrested the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced them before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate has mechanically accepted the remand instead of rejecting the remand. Section 69 and 108 of BNS are not attracted to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the other sections which are shown in the remand report are below seven years. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) M.Arjunan v. The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2018, Dated 04.12.2018 of the Supreme Court of India.); (ii) Allaveni Rajeshwari v. State of A.P (2006(1) ALD page 980) and (iii)Jangam Ravinder v. The State of A.P (Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2013 dated 23.09.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana.).

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has made a request before the concerned Court to record Section 183 of BNSS statement of the victim, which is pending consideration. Investigation is pending and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.2-complainant filed counter and contended that accused No.1-K.Dasu and accused No.4-J.Ravi, advocates are absconding and there is reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses who are known to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. Prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are enlarged on bail at the threshold of the investigation, in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Savitri Samson v. State of Karnataka (2001 AIR-KANT.H.C.R.1706) and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments has filed the statements of the witnesses in support of his contention.

7. De facto complainant has lodged a report before Jangaon Police Station, on 24.07.2026, stating that she has obtained mutual consent divorce in the year 2021 from her husband and shifted to Jangaon in the year 2022 to practice as an advocate and joined as a junior in the office of Prasad Rao. During the course of her practice, she got acquaintance with accused No.1-K.Dasu, who is also an advocate working in the same office. On 22.03.2023 when the de facto complainant was alone in the room at Jangaon, accused No.1- K.Dasu, came to her room, wrongfully restrained her, forcibly committed rape on her against her will, thereafter by desistfully promising to marry the de facto complainant and by criminal intimidation that he would defame her in legal profession if she refuses. Accused No.1- K.Dasu, repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse without her free and voluntary consent. Accused No.1- K.Dasu, intentionally refused to marry her, insulted her dignity by referring her to a second hand women. On 31.05.2026, a panchayat was held at wadlakonda village. Accused No.1- K.Dasu, publicly refused to marry the victim. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 intentionally insulted, abused, humiliated and provoked her to commit suicide and consume poison and die. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered.

8. Petitioners-accused nos.2 and 3 were arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate on 27.07.2026 and they were sent to remand. It is shown in the remand report that accused No.1- K.Dasu and accused No.4-J.Ravi, are absconding.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 submits that accused Nos.1 and 4 have filed anticipatory bail applications, which are pending consideration.

10.1 In M.Arjunan1 Supreme Court held that “The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: () the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide”.

               10.2 In Allaveni Rajeshwari2, this Court held that “When the circumstances referred in the above cases, would not constitute and offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is incomprehensible as to how the circumstances of the case on hand, where the accused has abused the deceased for the reasons of attempting to commit theft or of attempted sexual assault, on account of which, the deceased committed suicide, would constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. Thus, I hold that no offence under Section 306 is committed by the petitioner-accused and in that view of the matter; the instant revision is liable to be allowed”.

               10.3 In Jangam Ravinder3, this Court held that “Mere uttering the word “go and die” will not constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to “go and die” that itself does not constitute the ingredients of “instigation”. The word “instigate” does not incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. In the present case also, the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offences under Sections 306 and 417 of IPC”.

               10.4 The decisions cited by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 counsel stated supra are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply to the case on hand.

11.1 In Smt. Savitri Samson4, High Court of Karnataka observed at para No.5 as under:

               “In my view and as in the practice although the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Sessions Court to grant bail, it is desirable that the ordinary practice should be that the lower Court should be first moved in the matter, though in exceptional case and special circumstances, the High Court may entertain and decide an application for bail either under Section 438 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. This is specially important because any expression of opinion by the superior Court, is likely to prejudice if not frequently, in cases few and far between, the trial in the lower Court. Hence, in my view, it is only in exceptional circumstances that an application for bail should be made directly to the High Court and in the absence of special circumstances the application should not be entertained by the High Court”.

               11.2 The decisions cited by the respondent No.2 counsel stated supra is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of the case would not apply to the case on hand.

12. Remand report goes to show the manner in which the incident has taken place against the de facto complainant, which is in consonance with the complaint lodged by her. Punishment for the offences u/sec 69 and Section 108 of BNS are punishable upto 10 years.

13. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, the role played by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 is stated by the witnesses.

14. Prosecution has made an application before the concerned Court with a request to record Section 183 of BNSS statement of the victim, the said application is still pending.

15. Specific over acts are attributed against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in the remand case diary so also in the statements of the witnesses. Furthermore, accused No.1-K.Dasu, and accused No.4-J.Ravi, are still absconding and the de facto complainant statement is not yet recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. As investigation is pending, petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled for grant of bail at this stage.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.