(Prayer: 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.)

Oral Order

1. 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 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 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 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:

           "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 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.