- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: F M FAIROZ QURESHI S/O. F M FAROOQ QURESHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.230, 7TH CROSS, B BLOCK, SUBHASHNAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 062. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION (REP. BY LD. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT. NO.324, C K NAGAR HOSA ROAD, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. GIRISH J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 IN C.MISC.NO.11689/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (BENGALURU (CCH- 71) AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL WHO IS SHOWN AS ACCUSED IN CR.NO.554/2024 REGISTERED BY THE PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025 3(2)(V-A) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 OF BNS, WHICH IS PENDING TRIAL BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-71) BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant -accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) in Crime No.554/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and SPL Judge, Bangaluru (CCH-71), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS'), 2023 on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Smt.Gouramma. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the informant Smt. Gouramma lodged the first information, against accused No.1 - the appellant herein and others, stating that, on 06.12.2024 at about 12.30 in the noon, accused No.1 along - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025 with others, criminally trespassed into her residential house, armed with knife and stabbed the informant, caused injuries to her hand and legs, abused the informant in filthy language referring to her caste, criminally intimidated, pulled her saree and committed the offences as stated above. On the basis of the first information, the FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. The appellant has approached the Trial Court seeking grant of bail, but the said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not addressed his arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence his argument is taken as nil. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP, for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned ASPP, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025 My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. The informant being the injured eye-witness, has filed the first information making specific allegations against the appellant as accused No.1 and other unknown accused. Even though it is stated that the informant had sustained injuries, the wound certificate or other medical records are not produced. It is not the contention of the appellant that the investigation is completed. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence alleged, I am of the opinion, that the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11