Sadatulla Syed v. National Investigation Agency

[Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:752-DB]

In overturning a trial court’s judgement, the Karnataka High Court noted that, upon receiving the guarantor’s bond, the court is required to deliver the original sale deed to the surety upon request. Judge Sreenivas Harish Kumar’s bench further noted, “In this case, the court was directed to preserve the original of the sale deed in safe custody when it was produced. In our judgment, after receiving the surety’s bond, the court ought to have given him back the original sale deed. The sale deed must be returned by the court at the surety’s request.

The petitioner’s property was valued at ₹ 2 crores, and the bench also stated that a surety bond for Rs. 2 lakhs was required. In the event that the petitioner failed to appear in court, the surety bond would be forfeited, and the bond money would have to be paid. “The law also provides for showing remission in the bond,” it said. According to the encumbrance certificate in Annexure-E, the accused in this case appears to be appearing frequently, and there has also been a charge placed against the property. According to this perspective, the trial court ought to have granted the petitioner’s request and mandated the return of the original sale deed.

The respondent was represented by Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar, while the petitioner was represented by attorney Mohammed Tahir. The petitioner in this case served as the accused’s surety. In order to prove to the trial court that he is a solvent surety, the petitioner presented the original sale deed for his property along with his surety affidavit. In accordance with this, the court mandated that the sale document be kept in safekeeping.

An entry was also made in the encumbrance certificate upon the acceptance of the petitioner’s suretyship. The petitioner requested the return of the sale deed throughout the proceedings, but the trial court denied the surety’s request; as a result, the petition was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Consequently, the bench stated that the guarantor must satisfy the court by accepting him regardless of whether he is solvent. For that specific reason, the court will ask the surety to present the title document for any property that he has. The court has the authority to order the surety to present the original title deed in order to compare it with the Xerox copy, and if the Xerox copy is produced, the court may then return the original. Consequently, it ordered the trial court to give the petitioner/surety back the original selling deed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.