[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jayaraman Rengiah vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
CRL.P No. 4411 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2026
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.
3. V.J.MAHALAKSHMI,
Digitally
signed by C/O JAYARAMAN,
SUMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Location: R/AT NO.2, AMMAN NAGAR,
HIGH
COURT 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:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
CRL.P No. 4411 of 2026
HC-KAR
REP.BY. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALORE-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.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 26.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LD. VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.323/2026 IN CR.NO.342/2025 DATED 22.09.2025
REGISTERED BY NELAMANGALA RURAL P.S., PENDING BEFORE LD.
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order dated
26.02.2026 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 Section 308(2) and
351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
HC-KAR
2023'). The petitioners had sought for anticipatory bail in
Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025 which was granted on 02.12.2025
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 dated 02.12.2025. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
HC-KAR
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.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
representing the respondent No.1 submits that the order
passed by the District Court is just and proper as the
petitioners had failed to comply with the conditions. He
therefore submits that there is no need to interfere with the
impugned order and if petitioners desire, they may approach
the same Court and seek for modification of the conditions.
5. The respondent No.2 - defacto complainant, who is
present before this Court submits that the petitioners were
bound to furnish surety and that they were protracting the
proceedings and were ensuring that the police do not take
further steps. He also submits that there were several
litigations initiated by the petitioners in the Courts at
Coimbatore which had reached the Hon'ble High Court of
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
HC-KAR
Judicature at Madras and that despite several directions, the
petitioners have not been earnest in pursuing those cases. He
also contends that the petitioners had initiated proceedings in
C.C No.650/2018 for an offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that they are not
pursuing that case, but were unnecessarily harassing him by
multiple proceedings before various Courts. He therefore
submits that no indulgence be shown to the petitioners herein.
6. The petitioners had sought for anticipatory bail in
Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025 and the same was granted by the
District Court in terms of an order dated 02.12.2025. The said
order was subject to the following conditions:
"Consequently, in the event of arrest of petitioners
1 to 3/accused in Crime No.342/2025 of Nelamangala
Rural police Station, they are ordered to be released on
bail, on their executing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with a solvent surety having solvency
certificate issued by concerned revenue authority for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the court and to furnish
cast security amount of Rs.50,000/- each to be deposited
before the office of concerned Judicial Magistrate Court on
the following conditions:
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
HC-KAR
"1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on or before one month from the date of this
order and in that event Investigation Officer to obtain
bonds and to release them.
2. They shall appear before investigating officer as and
when called upon and to extend fullest co-operation
in the investigation.
3. They shall not cause threat to the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
4. They shall not indulge in similar offences in any
manner."
7. The petitioners now contend that there is no
procedure for issuing a solvency certificate in the state of Tamil
Nadu and therefore the petitioners are not in a position to
furnish surety. However, he contends that if an opportunity is
granted, the petitioners would furnish sureties after obtaining
appropriate certificates.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission and having
regard to the fact that the Court had insisted upon furnishing a
solvency certificate of a surety and having regard to the
predicament of the petitioners that they cannot obtain a
solvency certificate in the State of Tamil Nadu, this petition is
allowed and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by VI Additional
NC: 2026:KHC:15876
HC-KAR
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in
Crl.Misc. No.323/2026, is set aside.
9. The petitioners are granted an opportunity 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/-. This shall be complied within a period of two
weeks from today, failing which the petitioners shall not be
entitled to the benefit of this order and the police may proceed
in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
UN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34
