JAYARAMAN RENGIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were accused in Crime No.342/2025 for the offences punishable under Ss. 308(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as 'BNS'). The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, which was granted in Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025. This was however subject to furnishing solvent sureties. The petitioners failed to furnish the surety, following which an application was filed by the de facto complainant for cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail. The trial Court in terms of an order dtd. 26/3/2026 held, "The anticipatory bail was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Karnataka and had not insisted the petitioners furnish sureties of Tamil Nadu, who have solvency certificate." Consequently, it allowed the application to cancel the order dtd. 2/12/2025 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4411/2026.

(2.) (i) This Court after considering the contention of the petitioners that in the state of Tamil Nadu a government order is issued revoking the policy of granting solvency certificates. This Court in terms of the order dtd. 18/3/2026 granted an opportunity to the petitioners to furnish surety, either local or from any person in Tamil Nadu who has a solvency certificate from the concerned revenue authority to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier policy in the state of Tamil Nadu of issuing solvency certificates by the revenue officers is revoked and therefore, the petitioners cannot furnish surety who has a solvency certificate from the revenue authority. He further contends that the petitioners do not have any acquaintance in Karnataka and therefore, they cannot furnish a local surety. He however contends that the two commercial banks namely, Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank, have issued solvency certificates stating that the sureties furnished by the petitioners are solvent enough to stand surety. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the trial Court be set aside and the surety furnished by the petitioners be accepted.