JAYARAMAN RENGIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 26/2/2026 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Crl.Misc. No.323/2026.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent No.2 had initiated prosecution of the petitioners in Crime No.342/2025 for offences punishable under Sec. 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS 2023'). The petitioners had sought for anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025 which was granted on 2/12/2025 subject to certain conditions. One of which was that the petitioners should furnish solvent surety. The petitioners failed to furnish surety, following which an application was filed by the defacto complainant for cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail. The trial Court in terms of the impugned order held that "the anticipatory bail was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Karnataka and had not insisted the petitioners to furnish sureties of Tamil Nadu who have solvency certificate". Consequently, it allowed the petition and cancelled the order dtd. 2/12/2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that petitioners do not have any acquaintance in Karnataka and that the State of Tamil Nadu has issued a notification doing away with the procedure for providing a solvency certificate. He therefore submits that the petitioners be permitted to furnish cash surety or such other surety to the satisfaction of the Court. He submits that an application was filed by the petitioners before the Court for modification of the condition to furnish surety and that the said application was not considered by the trial Court before the impugned order canceling the order granting anticipatory bail. He therefore prays that the impugned order be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to furnish surety.