Allowed

Sri. Lande Bhaskar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2026CRLP/14337/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition regarding abetment to suicide, the High Court of Telangana held that the petitioner's name emerging from an accomplice's custody confession did not establish a strong prima facie case against him. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, mandatory weekly appearances before the SHO, and prohibition from influencing witnesses.

Sri. Lande Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14337 of 2026

¶5

CNR.No.HBHC010604212026

DATE: 11.09.2026

BETWEEN:

Lande Bhaskar

… Petitioner-Accused No.3

¶10

And

¶11

The State of Telangana Though PS Kamareddy, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. … Respondent - Complainant

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This memorandum of Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner - accused No.3 on bail in connection with Crime No.693 of 2024 of P.S.Kamareddy, Kamareddy District. The offence alleged against the petitioner – accused No.3 is under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

¶14

Heard Sri Padam Rajendar, learned counsel for the petitioner-A3 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

¶15

¶16

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.14337 of 2026

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the allegations in the case relate to the unfortunate death of one Chepuri Shirisha, aged about 29 years who died by suicide by hanging on 04.12.2024. Crime came to be registered on the complaint given by the father of the deceased. 108 of BNS is shown in the remand report on the basis of the statement of the complainant dated 16.06.2026 after several months of the death of the deceased Original case was registered on 05.12.2024 under section 194 of BNSS. The police has recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest and post-mortem examination. LW1 to LW6 were examined on 05.12.2024 and all the witness statements disclosed that the deceased committed suicide. After six months i.e., on 16.06.2026 complainant has submitted a detailed petition, basing on which Section of law is altered. The confession of A1 cannot by itself constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner - A3. The remand report does not disclose any independent incriminating material, document and communication. Petitioner - A3 has no criminal antecedents. It is alleged in the confession statement that one FIR had previously been registered against the petitioner - A3 in Crime No.103 of 2023 of Domakonda police station which is on a false complaint. Petitioner –A3 is in custody since 13.08.2026. LW1 to LW17 are already examined and the

¶18

¶19

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.14337 of 2026

¶20

investigation is at the fag end. Counsel to support his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ , (ii) Banuka Prem Sai vs. State of Telangana² and prayed to enlarge the petitioner – A3 on bail.

¶21

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A1’s bail application came to be dismissed by this Court on 09.09.2026 and the role played by the petitioner - A3 is depicted in the remand case diary and he is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶22

V.Balaiah has lodged a report on 05.12.2024 before PS Kamareddy town, Kamareddy District, wherein he stated that on 04.12.2024 at about 20 hours his brother in law by name Yadagiri called him and informed that Sirisha has committed suicide by hanging and died. Basing on the said complaint FIR came to be registered under Section 194 of BNSS against unknown accused.

¶23

Petitioner - A3 is in judicial custody since 13.08.2026. Remand case diary goes to show that LW16-R.Sai Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police resumed the case, perused the CD file, verified the investigation done by LW15-M.Sriram and found improper in lines. It is to be noted here that LW15-M.Sriram has collected PME

¶24

1 2025 SCC online SC 1725

¶25

2 Crl.P.No.12120 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025 in the High Court for the State of Telangana

¶26

¶27

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.14337 of 2026

¶28

from LW13-Dr.Z.A.Hashmi who held autopsy over the corpse. On 16.06.2026 that is after a period of six months complainant has submitted a detailed petition stating that subsequent to the death of his daughter, certain facts had come to his knowledge which were not disclosed at the time of lodging the original complaint. In the statement the name of A2 – I.Sidda Goud and the name of A1 – K.Bapurao and others is mentioned. The name of the petitioner - A3 does not find place in the statement dated 16.06.2026. LW16R.Sai Krishna has taken police custody of A1-K.Bapurao and his confession statement is recorded. In the confession statement of A1-K.Bapurao he has referred to the name of A2 – I.Sidda Goud and one Rajender which is pertaining to Crime No. 106 of 2023. A1 further confessed that in the year 2024 he along with his associate Sidda Goud - A2 and L.Bhaskar [petitioner herein] threatened the deceased. The name of the petitioner - A3 is revealed by A1 while he was in police custody.

¶29

As stated supra the name of the petitioner - A3 does not find place in the statement given by the complainant on 16.06.2026. The name of the petitioner – A3 came to light only when A1 was taken in police custody and his confession statement is recorded.

¶30

8.1 In Abhinav Mohan Delkar¹ , Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.24, which reads as under:

¶31

¶32

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.14337 of 2026

¶33

We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few run away and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306.

¶34

8.2 In Banuka Prem Sai² this Court observed at paragraph No.6, which reads as under:

¶35

“After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available the record, it appears that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence and as per the defacto complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the deceased, which allegedly led to the deceased committing suicide.”

¶36

The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner – A3 in paragraph No.8.1 is dealt in a quash proceedings and the decision in paragraph Nos.8.2 is dealt in pre-arrest bail, hence they are not applicable.

¶37

This Court is of the view that the petitioner – A3 has made out a case for grant of bail in view of the fact that his name surfaced only when A1 was taken to police custody, while interrogation he referred the name of petitioner - A3. This Court is of the view that petitioner – A3 has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶38

¶39

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.14337 of 2026

¶40

Therefore the petitioner – A3 is entitled for grant of bail subject to the following conditions:

¶41

i. The petitioner – A3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy.

¶42

ii. The petitioner – A3 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., on every Sunday and Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶43