Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 259 (TS)

Jammugani Varalakshmi v. State of Telangana

2025-04-07

J.SREENIVASRAO

body2025
ORDER : (J. SREENIVASRAO, J.) Criminal Petition No.4153 of 2025 is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.7 of 2025 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad registered as woman missing case. 2. Criminal Petition No.4157 of 2025 is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.8 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The petitioners in both the criminal petitions are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.7 of 2025 of Panjagutta Police Station and Crime No.8 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station respectively, on the very same grounds . Therefore, both the criminal petitions are clubbed together and disposed by way of this common order. 4. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 02.01.2025 at 11.00 PM, de-facto complainant-Adepu Prabhu lodged a report alleging that at around 11.00 AM, he left the house for his work as Chief Editor at Suman TV and returned around 8.00 PM, before returning, he called his wife Durga Madhavi (deceased) twice but no response. Upon arriving home, he unlocked the door with key available with him, found his wife was not there, assuming that she might have gone for a walk or to a neighbour's house, he waited for some time and called her again, this time, he heard her phone ringing inside the house, and he found the phone on the bed of 2nd bed room, suspecting that she had left the house without her phone, caused enquiries with neighbours, but they had not seen her. Then he called his younger daughter- Spandana, who asked him not to worry and to check for any messages on her phone, and upon checking the phone, he discovered a video recording containing a suicide note. Basing on report of LW.1, a case was registered in Crime No. 7/2025 for the offence under Woman missing. During the course of investigation, on 03.01.2025 at 8.00 AM, an unidentified female body was traced in Durgam Cheruvu, and a case had been registered at Madhapur PS vide Crime No.8/2024 under Section 194 of BNSS . Basing on report of LW.1, a case was registered in Crime No. 7/2025 for the offence under Woman missing. During the course of investigation, on 03.01.2025 at 8.00 AM, an unidentified female body was traced in Durgam Cheruvu, and a case had been registered at Madhapur PS vide Crime No.8/2024 under Section 194 of BNSS . Later the dead body was identified as the body of complainant's wife i.e., missing woman in this case. During the course of investigation, re-examined LW.1 and recorded his statement. Basing on the evidence collected and basing on self-recorded suicide video of deceased, involvement of petitioners herein came into light and altered section of law from Section 194 of BNSS to Section 108 of BNS. 5. Heard Mr. Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State in both the petitions and Mr. G.Rajesham, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto-complainant in Criminal Petition No.4153 of 2025. 6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and there are no allegations either in the complaint lodged by de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 in Crime No.7 of 2025 or in Crime No.8 of 2025 against the petitioner and the petitioners have not made as accused in both the crimes. However, at the instance of de-facto-complainant/respondentNo.2 (hereinafter referred as ‘respondent No.2’), the police are trying to implicate the petitioners as accused to resolve the property and financial disputes and to arrest them in the above said crimes. 6.2 He further submitted that initially Crime No.7 of 2025 was registered as woman missing basing upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 and Crime No.8 of 2025 was registered basing upon the complaint lodged by the Police Constable namely, Mr.G.Srisailam under Section 194 of BNSS , on the file of Madhapur Police Station. However, basing upon the statement given by respondent No.2 only, the Section of law was altered from 194 of BNSS to Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. He also submitted that the petitioners have not instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no abetment on their part and the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners have not instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no abetment on their part and the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. 6.3 He also submitted that petitioner No.1 is mother, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and at no point of time, they have abused, harassed or abetted her to commit suicide. According to the statement of respondent No.2, there are property disputes and financial differences between the petitioners, respondent No.2 and the deceased. At the instance of respondent No.2, with an intention to resolve the said civil disputes i.e., property or financial disputes, police are trying to implicate the petitioners as accused in the above said crimes and the same is not permissible under law. 6.4 He further submitted that petitioner No.1 is 75 years old woman, suffering with old age ailments, petitioner No.2 is a private employee, and petitioner No.3 is his wife and she is also suffering with health problems, and they are not having any criminal antecedents. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they will abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Unless the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will be put to great hardship. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: i) Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107 ii) Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 7.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave offence and due to their harassment only, the deceased committed suicide. The deceased specifically stated in her self-recorded video through her cell phone that due to the harassment made by the petitioners only, she committed suicide and the petitioners are solely responsible for cause of her death. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in his statement specifically stated that the petitioners have used filthy language against the deceased and also harassed her, due to which she committed suicide. 7.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in his statement specifically stated that the petitioners have used filthy language against the deceased and also harassed her, due to which she committed suicide. 7.2. He further submitted that the deceased had paid huge amount of Rs.85 to 90 lakhs to safeguard the properties of the petitioners and basing on their words, she cleared the loan account of Mannem Adi Narayana and released the mortgaged properties belonging to her father. However, the deceased came to know that the petitioner No.2 claiming the entire property through the will deed executed by her father and the petitioners refused to repay the amount, which was given by her and also refused to give her share in the joint family properties, on the other hand, they harassed the deceased by using filthy language. Due to their harassment only, she committed suicide and the same was specifically stated in her video, which is recorded by her in her mobile phone. The investigation is under progress and at this stage they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, they will influence the witnesses and also interfere with the investigation. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail petition and submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave offence and there are specific allegations against them. Though initially the crime was registered under Section 194 of BNSS , subsequently in Crime No.8 of 2025, the police altered Section 194 of BNSS into Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. During the course of investigation, LWs.1 to 3, who are none other than the husband, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased have categorically stated that the petitioners have harassed the deceased and also the deceased in her self-recorded video specifically stated that the petitioners are responsible for her death. Moreover, the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that initially the crime No.7 of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 as woman missing. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that initially the crime No.7 of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 as woman missing. Thereafter, basing on the complaint lodged by the Police Constable, Crime No.8 of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS . Subsequently altered Section of law from Section 194 of BNSS into Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor basing upon the instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station dated 03.04.2025, submitted that the investigating officer examined LWs.1 to 8 and recorded their statements and investigation is under progress. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed the statements of LWs.1 to 3, who are none other than the husband, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased, wherein they specifically stated that due to the harassment of the petitioners only, the deceased died. 11. The record further reveals that the deceased has recorded video in her cell phone, wherein she stated that the petitioners are sole responsible for her death. The record further reveals that there are disputes between the petitioners, deceased and respondent No.2 in respect of joint family properties and also some financial disputes. According to the prosecution, the deceased in her self-recorded video specifically mentioned that the petitioners are solely responsible for her death. 12. The judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Awase (supra) and Kanchan Sharma (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that the deceased in self recorded video specifically mentioned the names of the petitioners and they are responsible for cause of her death. 13. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no allegations against the petitioners either in the complaints or their names were not mentioned as accused in the FIR concerned, the deceased in self recorded video specifically mentioned the names of the petitioners and they are responsible for cause of her death. 14. 13. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no allegations against the petitioners either in the complaints or their names were not mentioned as accused in the FIR concerned, the deceased in self recorded video specifically mentioned the names of the petitioners and they are responsible for cause of her death. 14. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitender Kumar vs. State of Haryana , [2012] 6 SCC 204 held that the accused can be convicted even if not named in the FIR, provided that there is credible evidence linking the accused to a specific role in the crime. 15. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, especially when the investigation is under progress. 16. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.