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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 followin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document