Sri Appu @ Anniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023 IN (CRIME No.99/2025) S.C.No.1341/2025 OF J.J.NAGARA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103,61(2),189(2),191(2),191(3),190 OF BNS ACT 2023.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5 under

¶25

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C.No.1341/2025 arising out of Crime No.99/2025 of J.J. Nagara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS pending on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-59) Bangalore.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶27

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

¶28

–State.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2293 CRL.P No. 17341 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶32

contend that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no specific overtact alleged against petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is not having any criminal antecedents and petitioner No.1 is stated to be involved in one case in the year 2021 for offence punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. The recovery of the weapon is joint recovery. As the charge sheet is filed, petitioners are not required for further interrogation. With these, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that there is direct allegation against petitioners assaulting the deceased with deadly weapon and causing his death. C.W.3 has seen these petitioners along with accused Nos.1 to 3 chasing the deceased and subsequently finding the dead body near by place. The statement of C.W.2 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:2293 CRL.P No. 17341 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

recovery of blood stained cloths at the instance of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 is involved in Crime No.173/2021 of J.J.Nagara Police Station registered for offence under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Arms Act. The deceased was rowdy sheeter. The parity does not apply, since accused Nos.6 and 7 have been granted bail as there is no is allegation of overtact of assaulting the deceased against them. The post mortem report indicates that the deceased has sustained 23 injuries. If, petitioners are granted bail, there is threat to prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, he prays to reject the petition.

¶38

Having heard learned Counsels, the Court

¶39

has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶40

On perusal of column No.17 of the charge sheet, accused Nos.1 to 7 and juvenile accused conspired to kill the deceased. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused No.7 intimated the movement of deceased to

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2293 CRL.P No. 17341 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

accused Nos.1 to 5, who attacked the deceased and caused injury, due to which deceased died.

¶44

There are no eye witnesses to the incident

¶45

and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. C.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and in his statement he has stated that he saw accused Nos.1 to 5 chasing the deceased. The statement of C.W.3 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of petitioner No.2. It is submitted that FSL report is not yet received. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no eye witnesses who have seen these petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulting the deceased. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances has to be established at the trial. As charge sheet is filed, petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners have made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2293 CRL.P No. 17341 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In the result, the following

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The petition is allowed.

¶51

ii) The petitioners are granted bail in S.C.No.1341/2025 arising out of Crime No.99/2025 of J.J. Nagara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS pending on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH59) Bangalore subject to following conditions:

¶52

a) Petitioners –accused Nos.4 and 5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶53

b) Petitioners –accused Nos.4 and 5 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:2293 CRL.P No. 17341 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

c) Petitioners –accused Nos.4 and 5 shall

¶58

attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶59

d) Petitioners –accused Nos.4 and 5 shall not involve in commission of any offence. If petitioners are found involved in commission of any offence, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted to them.

¶60

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶61

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Ct.sm

Sri Appu @ Anniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Appu @ Anniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hakeem Ali Vs the State

Bharath Ganeshan, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Harsha R Vs the State of Karnataka

Wasim Pasha Vs State of Karnataka by