Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jayaraman Rengiah vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 3039 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3039 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jayaraman Rengiah vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026

                                            -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:19321
                                                     CRL.P No. 5530 of 2026


              HC-KAR




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                        BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5530 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /
                               528(BNSS))

             BETWEEN:

             1.    JAYARAMAN RENGIAH
                   C/O RANGAIYA,
                   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.2, NEAR AMMAN NAGAR,
                   VASANTHAM NAGAR,
                   KARATTUMEDU, SARAVANAMPATTI,
                   COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 035.

             2.    MUTHUSAMY T
                   S/O THANGAVELU,
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                   R/AT: NO.44, SRI MURUGAN NAGAR,
                   CHERAN MAANAGAR BACKSIDE,
                   COIMBATORE SOUTH,
                   TAMILNADU - 641048.
Digitally
signed by    3.    V.J.MAHALAKSHMI,
HEMALATHA          C/O JAYARAMAN,
J
                   AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH COURT         R/AT NO.2 AMMAN NAGAR,
OF                 NEAR VASANTHAM NAGAR,
KARNATAKA          KARATTUMEDU, SARAVANAMPATTI,
                   VTC: SARAVANAMPATTI,
                   PO: SARAVANAMPATTI,
                   DISTRICT: COIMBATORE,
                   STATE: TAMILNADU, PIN CODE-641 035.
                                                              ...PETITIONERS
             (BY SRI. PAVAN A., ADVOCATE)

             AND:
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:19321
                                        CRL.P No. 5530 of 2026


 HC-KAR



1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
     REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BENGALURU 560001

2.   DR. V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN
     S/O R. VISHWANATHAN,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     DOOR NO. 1568, KIRAN NILAYA,
     NEAR POST OFFICE, INDIRA NAGARA,
     NELAMANGALA TOWN,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-562123
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1;
    NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
    DATED 08.04.2026)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 26.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT (THE "LD.TRIAL COURT" HEREINAFTER) IN RESPECT OF
CR.NO.342/2025 REGISTERED BY NELAMANGALAL RURAL POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-
A2 AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ


                       ORAL ORDER

The petitioners were accused in Crime No.342/2025 for

the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 351(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as

NC: 2026:KHC:19321

HC-KAR

'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 dated 26.03.2026

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 dated 02.12.2025 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 dated 18.03.2026 granted an

opportunity to the petitioners to furnish surety, either local or

from any person in Tamil Nadu who has a solvency certificate

NC: 2026:KHC:19321

HC-KAR

from the concerned revenue authority to the satisfaction of the

trial Court for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(ii) The petitioners then approached the trial Court with

a surety, who had a solvency certificate from Karnataka Bank

and Canara Bank. The said application was rejected by the trial

Court in view of the order passed by this Court in

Crl.P.No.4411/2026, which stated that the petitioners may

furnish a surety who has a solvency certificate from the

concerned revenue authority in Tamil Nadu. Being aggrieved by

the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

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

NC: 2026:KHC:19321

HC-KAR

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.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader

however contended that if the sureties furnish immovable

property to the satisfaction of the Court, the same may be

accepted.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/state.

6. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in

Crl.P.No.4411/2026 shows that the petitioners were called upon

to furnish surety of any person in Tamil Nadu or a local surety

who has a solvency certificate from the concerned revenue

authority. However, since it is stated that the Revenue

Department in the state of Tamil Nadu has revoked the policy

of granting solvency certificates, it would well nigh be

impossible for the petitioners to furnish a surety from Tamil

Nadu who has a solvency certificate from the concerned

revenue authority.

NC: 2026:KHC:19321

HC-KAR

7. In that view of the matter, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

i. This petition is allowed;

ii. The impugned order passed by the trial Court

dated 26.03.2026 is set aside. The trial Court is

directed to accept the surety furnished by the

petitioners, who are declared to be solvent by

Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank;

iii. The trial Court shall thereafter inform the

concerned bank to check the authenticity of the

solvency certificate issued by the bank.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter