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 '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 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 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 w