MCRC 4293/2016. Case: Sapna (Transgender) Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | MCRC 4293/2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel and For Respondents: Mr. Punit Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer |
| Judges | Atul Sreedharan, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439; Indian Penal Code - Sections 342, 323, 324, 326, 506, 34 |
| Judgement Date | June 01, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.55/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 324, 326, 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Mangalwara, District Bhopal. The applicants are in judicial custody since 19.02.2016 for the offences mentioned above.
As per the allegations, on 10.2.2016 at about 3.15 p.m the complainant Abrar alias Sarika, a transgender according to the learned counsel for the applicants, which however has been vehemently opposed by Mr. S. K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the complainant who says that his client was not a transgender, reported that on 4.2.2016 at about 12.00 p.m the complainant was confined in the house of one Suraiya, a transgender and was beaten by five accused persons including the applicants herein. The complainant further states that on 8.2.2016 the complainant was beaten and became unconscious and on 9.2.2016 when the complainant regained consciousness, the complainant discovered that injury has been inflicted on the complainant's private part. The MLC performed on the complainant shows the injury to be grievous in nature. The MLC also states that there was no bleeding present from the injury at the time of examination and also records that the male organ was removed and sutures were present. The applicants herein have been named in the FIR. In the FIR the complainant states that the complainant performs dance in marriages, which was objected by the applicants and the co-accused who had threatened to make the complainant a transgender. The rest of the narrative follows the threat. As per memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of coaccused Suraiya, the only role that is attributed to the applicants herein are of having joined the co-accused in beating the complainant. In the said memorandum under Section 27, Suraiya further attributes the act of privation of the private part of the complainant to Shabab, another co-accused person. Section 27 memorandum of Shabab also...
To continue reading
Request your trial