Dismissed¶39

F M Fairoz Qureshi v. State of Karnataka

Bail – Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2025CRL.A/220/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:28512 — CRL.A No. 220 of 2025 (High Court of Karnataka, M G Uma, J., decided 25.07.2025). Bail appeal under S.14-A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act dismissed; bail refused in Crime No.554/2024, Parappana Agrahara Police Station (ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST (POA) Act; 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 BNS 2023). Keywords: gravity/seriousness of offence; injured eyewitness informant; non-production of wound certificate/medical records; investigation not complete; appellant's counsel absent — argument treated as nil; no case law cited.

What did the court decide?

The point framed is answered in the negative: the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the criminal appeal is dismissed. ¶37

F M Fairoz Qureshi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-accused is entitled to grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crime No.554/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station.

¶31

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Bail is declined principally looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence alleged against the appellant.

¶37

Key takeaways

Supporting findings: the informant is an injured eye-witness who filed the first information making specific allegations against the appellant as accused No.1 and other unknown accused; the wound certificate or other medical records of her injuries were not produced; and it was not the appellant's contention that the investigation was completed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act — Appellant, accused No.1 in Crime No.554/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 of BNS, 2023, on the FIR of Smt. Gouramma alleging armed trespass, stabbing and caste abuse on 06.12.2024), challenged the rejection of his bail application (order dated 10.01.2025 in C.MISC.No.11689/2024 of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71)). Held, dismissing the appeal: appellant's counsel made no submissions (argument taken as nil); the informant is an injured eye-witness who made specific allegations against the appellant; the wound certificate or other medical records were not produced; completion of investigation was not contended; and having regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence alleged, the appellant is not entitled to bail — point answered in the negative.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

F M FAIROZ QURESHI S/O. F M FAROOQ QURESHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.230, 7^TH CROSS, B BLOCK, SUBHASHNAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION (REP. BY LD. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT. NO.324, C K NAGAR HOSA ROAD, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560100

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1

¶17

SRI. GIRISH J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT))

¶18

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 (CCH71) 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),

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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.

¶22

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

In view of the submissions made by the learned ASPP, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28512 CRL.A No. 220 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the

¶35

following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

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:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The appeal dismissed .

¶40

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

F M Fairoz Qureshi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

F M Fairoz Qureshi 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 Prashanth K, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dore Swamy Vs State by Beechanahalli Police

Parvathi Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Sahil Vs the State by

Venkataswamappa Vs the State by

Bhupanagouda S/O Veeranagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.