Allowed¶54

Jayaraman Rengiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026CRL.P/5530/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; cancellation of bail; solvent surety; solvency certificate; revocation of Tamil Nadu revenue-authority solvency certificate policy; Karnataka Bank; Canara Bank; local surety; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 308(2) and 351(2) BNS 2023; Crime No.342/2025; Nelamangala Rural Police Station; Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025; Crl.P.No.4411/2026; CRL.P No. 5530 of 2026; High Court of Karnataka; R. Nataraj J.; order dated 26.03.2026 set aside; Rs.1,00,000/- surety sum.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.03.2026 of the trial Court set aside; trial Court directed to accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners, who are declared solvent by Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank, and thereafter to inform the concerned bank to check the authenticity of the solvency certificate issued by it. ¶54

Jayaraman Rengiah Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned trial Court order could stand, and whether the sureties furnished by the petitioners holding solvency certificates issued by Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank ought to be accepted, given that the Tamil Nadu Revenue Department revoked the policy of issuing solvency certificates through revenue officers and the petitioners have no acquaintance in Karnataka to furnish a local surety.

¶42

Court's answer

Because 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 holding a solvency certificate from the concerned revenue authority.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the impugned trial Court order 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.

¶54

Key takeaways

The trial Court is further directed to inform the concerned bank to check the authenticity of the solvency certificate issued by it.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS) by three accused in Crime No.342/2025 (Ss.308(2), 351(2) BNS 2023), Nelamangala Rural Police Station. Their anticipatory bail, granted in Crl.Misc.No.2115/2025 subject to solvent sureties, was cancelled by the trial Court's order dated 26.03.2025/26.03.2026 after they failed to furnish sureties. An earlier order of this Court in Crl.P.No.4411/2026 (dated 18.03.2026) permitted a surety from Tamil Nadu holding a solvency certificate from the concerned revenue authority for Rs.1,00,000/-; the trial Court then rejected sureties holding solvency certificates issued by Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank. Holding that, since the Tamil Nadu Revenue Department revoked the policy of issuing solvency certificates, it was impossible for the petitioners to procure a revenue-authority certificate and they had no local acquaintance in Karnataka, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial Court to accept the bank-certified sureties after verifying the certificates' authenticity with the banks.

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

MUTHUSAMY T S/O THANGAVELU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT: NO.44, SRI MURUGAN NAGAR, CHERAN MAANAGAR BACKSIDE, COIMBATORE SOUTH, TAMILNADU - 641048.

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

V.J.MAHALAKSHMI, C/O JAYARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.2 AMMAN NAGAR, NEAR VASANTHAM NAGAR, KARATTUMEDU, SARAVANAMPATTI, VTC: SARAVANAMPATTI, PO: SARAVANAMPATTI, DISTRICT: COIMBATORE, STATE: TAMILNADU, PIN CODE-641 035.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PAVAN A., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.04.2026)

¶22

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 ANNEXUREA2 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

'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.

¶31

(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

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

from the concerned revenue authority to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶36

(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.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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.

¶43

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶44

however contended that if the sureties furnish immovable property to the satisfaction of the Court, the same may be accepted.

¶45

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶46

counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/state.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶51

passed:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. This petition is allowed ;

¶54

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;

¶55

iii. The trial Court shall thereafter inform the concerned bank to check the authenticity of the solvency certificate issued by the bank.

¶56

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

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

Jayaraman Rengiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaraman Rengiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Mathew Vs the State of Karnataka

Muninarayana B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh D S Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Venkatesh C J Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh Shetty Vs Smt Mamatha R

Sri Krishnaiah Vs State of Karnataka