IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SHIVARAJU D., S/O DHOOLAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT 3^RD WARD BADRIKOPPALLU PALAGRAHARA POST NAGAMANAGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 432.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI HONNESHA B. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

HEMANTH KUMAR H. K., Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI S/O KRISHNAPPA J KARISHETTY Location: Hi gh AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Court of RESIDENT OF Karnataka MYLARAPATNA ROAD T.B.EXTENSION NAGAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 432.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE CONDITION IMPOSED IN ORDER DATED 23.02.2026, PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT NAGAMANGALA IN C.C.NO.757/2021 REGARDING FURNISHING CASH SURETY OF RS.2,50,000/-.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question an order dated 23.02.2026, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, in C.C.No.757/2021, by which, the bail application filed under Section 436 of the Cr.P.C., in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, comes to be allowed by imposing a condition to execute a personal bond of ₹2,50,000/- and a cash surety of ₹2,50,000/-.

2. Heard Sri Honnesha B.R., learned counsel for petitioner. Notice to respondent need not be issued in the matter.

3. The allegation is that, the petitioner had issued a cheque of ₹4,00,000 and the said cheque had been dishonoured. The dishonour of the cheque, which leads the complainant before the concerned Court in C.C.No.757/2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim.

The petitioner files a bail application under Section 436 of the Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court. The concerned Court directs execution of a personal bond of ₹2,50,000/- along with furnishing of cash surety of ₹2,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, which directs furnishing of cash surety of ₹2,50,000/- for grant of bail, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. It is trite law that cash surety must not be imposed as a condition precedent for setting a person at liberty. The issue stands answered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GAJANAN DATTATRAY GORE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 wherein, it is held as follows:

“…. …. ….

19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs.

20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.

21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.

22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again.

23. In the case in hand, so far as the plea for regular bail is concerned, we are not inclined to look into. The appellant has made a mockery of justice. He could be said to have abused the process of law. If at all the High Court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period of time and upon such deposit the appellant could have been released.

24. Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very clear that there shall not be a single order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular