Erappa @ Raja @ Veerappa Vs State of Karnataka

ERAPPA @ RAJA @ VEERAPPA S/O BASAPPA @ SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KIKKERI POLICE STATION REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

&RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.77/2022 AND IN S.C.NO.5065/2022 OF RESPONDENT KIKKERI POLICE STATION, FOR THE O/P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 354B, 302, 114, 506, 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATTANA) AND ETC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:50065 CRL.P No. 5885 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.77/2022 of Kikkeri Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5065/2022 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapattana) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 354(B), 302, 114, 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Bhavya Y.B.

¶26

Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:50065 CRL.P No. 5885 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶32

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

<Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?=

¶34

My answer to the above point is in 8Negative9 for the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The FIR in Crime No.77/2022 of Kikkeri Police

¶37

Station came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 354(B), 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the above said offences. As per Column No.17 of the charge sheet, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with the deceased, accused No.1 abused

¶38

the deceased in filthy language in the presence of eyewitnesses CWs.1 and 2 and assaulted him with a club.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50065 CRL.P No. 5885 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

He snatched the machete from the hand of accused No.2

¶42

and assaulted the deceased on his head. Accused No.2 snatched the machete from the hand of accused No.1 and assaulted the deceased causing fatal injuries. Thus, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 have inflicted fatal injuries by using deadly weapon i.e., the machete which resulted in the death of the deceased. However, the Post Mortem report is not produced by the petitioner. Admittedly, the deceased died on the way to the hospital. There are eyewitnesses to the incident and there are other material witnesses who support the case of the prosecution.

¶43

The only allegation made against the other accused is that they abetted commission of offence by accused Nos.1 and 2 and have assisted them and therefore, accused Nos.3 to 5 have already enlarged on bail subject to conditions. But accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the authors of crime which are punishable either with

¶44

death or imprisonment for life.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50065 CRL.P No. 5885 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.11718/2022.

¶48

The same came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move similar application before the trial Court after examination of the material witnesses i.e. CWs.1 to 7 and 14 to 17.

¶49

Now admittedly CW.1 is examined as PW.1, but

¶50

he is not yet cross-examined by the petitioner. It is stated that on few days CWs.2 to 5 were kept present but their examination-in-chief could not be carried out as the advocate for the accused was absent. On other dates, the case came to be adjourned on various reasons. It is stated that advocate for the accused requested the trial Court to permit them to cross-examine all the material witnesses at a stretch, which is causing delay in trial. However, the

¶51

same cannot be a justification for the trial Court to postpone the matter ignoring the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence and the overt act committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:50065 CRL.P No. 5885 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

as material witnesses are to be examined before the

¶56

Court.

¶57

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The petition is dismissed.

¶60

Prosecution is directed to keep the material

¶61

witnesses present before the trial Court and the counsel for the accused is directed to proceed with the crossexamination of all the material witnesses.

¶62

Trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since long should expedite the trial.

¶63

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶64

NR/-

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Erappa @ Raja @ Veerappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erappa @ Raja @ Veerappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shekar G Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gayithramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. a. Gadigeppa Vs State of Karnataka

B H Vijikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nithesh D Vs Shree Bhagavathi Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S. Avion Network Vs the National Co-Operative Bank Limited