Surety over jointly owned property may be rejected absent consent from all co-owners.

The petitioner, Accused No. 3, had been granted bail by the Sessions Court on 1 September 2026, subject to conditions including payment of a ₹10,000 penalty, execution of a personal bond for ₹1,00,000, and furnishing two sureties for the like amount

The petitioner offered his brother and mother as sureties against property jointly held by six persons. The trial court rejected the sureties because the other four co-owners had not filed affidavits consenting to the property being offered, and also noted that the penalty had not been deposited

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s sureties because the other co-owners of the property had not filed affidavits consenting to its use as security

2. Whether the High Court should set aside the rejection order and direct the petitioner’s release on the strength of the sureties already offered

The petition invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the petitioner sought the High Court’s intervention against the trial court’s order

The bail order had been made under Section 439 CrPC and required two sureties for the like amount, among other conditions

The Court considered Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra, concerning inability to furnish local surety, and Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri v. State of Karnataka, concerning surety requirements in statutory bail cases under Section 167(2) CrPC; it held those decisions inapplicable to the circumstances before it

The judgment did not state a broader rule governing sureties over jointly owned property.

The Court found that the property offered as security was owned jointly by six persons, but only two had offered themselves as sureties; the remaining four had not filed affidavits consenting to the property being offered

It distinguished Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari, which concerned inability to furnish local surety, and Prathap Singh, which concerned surety requirements in statutory-bail cases

On these facts, the Court found no error in the trial court’s refusal to accept the sureties

It dismissed the criminal petition; the requested direction to accept the sureties and release the petitioner was not granted