Allowed

Erappa @ Mukrappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021CRL.P/1463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail in a murder case. The Court directed the Trial Court to release the petitioner on bail subject to a personal bond, with two sureties, and compliance with specific conditions regarding jurisdiction and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, no exit from jurisdiction, and appearing for trial.

Erappa @ Mukrappa Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1463 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ERAPPA @ MUKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUKAPPA, RESIDING AT SINGARAJAPALLI VILLAGE, HOMENAGARA POST, ADDONI TALUK, KARNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 574 214.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HARISH PRABHU, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, VIVEKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.311 OF 2016 REGISTERED BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF THE IPC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.311 of 2016 registered by Viveknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), pending on the file the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C. No.474 of 2017.

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that 19-12-2016, Sri Umashankar R., Principal, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner and the deceasedLingamma are husband and wife and were working as Watchmen for B.B.M.P. Girls High School and Junior College, Austin Town. On the date of incident, the

¶23

¶24

deceased’s daughter informed the complainant that her mother is found dead in water sump tank and her body is floating. The petitioner was not found and therefore, they suspected that the petitioner might have committed the murder of his wife. On the next date, the Police arrested the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has already examined all the witnesses and the only witness left out for examination is P.W.21-Investigating Officer (Complainant Witness No.42). Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, on 15-4-2019, the Sessions Court rejected the petition of the petitioner. On 2-11-2019, the case was posted for examination of P.W.21. The trial is completed and statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has to be recorded. The case is based upon the circumstantial

¶27

¶28

evidence. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the previous petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition after evidence of vital witnesses are recorded. Now, all the material witnesses have been recorded and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Keeping the petitioner is custody will not serve any purpose, except for examination of P.W.21 and passing of final order. If bail is granted to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶31

The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.311 of 2016 registered by Viveknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

¶33

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶34

ii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court; and

¶35

iii) Petitioner shall take up the trial without causing any delay.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for speedy disposal of the main case.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

kvk

Erappa @ Mukrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erappa @ Mukrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar R @ Pradeep Vs the Station House Officer

A P Abhijith Vs State by Basaralu Police

Krishna @ Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by Its

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Vs State of Karnataka