- (1.) Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have not got done the emasculation of the victim at their own, rather victim was consenting party and emasculation has been done with his consent; that the emasculation of victim is not a crime as it is usual practice amongst the persons of the category of victim, who get themselves emasculated at their own; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by mother of the victim after an inordinate delay of four months, the victim was a dancer who left with applicants, having been fetched by them considering his dress/sense, and stayed, at their house for a considerable period of about 18 days; that it is wrong to say that on 14.2.2015 the applicants, on the pretext of illness and treatment of co-accused Farzana, taken the applicant to Dr. Indeever Upadhyaya and after administering sedative in his tea, when he lost consciousness, got his male organ chopped off; that the surgery of victim was done by Medical Officer with his consent and there is no case of forcible emasculation of the victim at the instance of the applicants; that the applicants also belong to the community of persons of common gender; that on 12.4.2015 applicant no.1 was forcibly emasculated and converted to the community of persons of common gender regarding which F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no.1 against the miscreants on 30.5.2015 registered at Case Crime No.315 of 2015, under Sections 326, 342, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; that the applicants have no criminal history; that the applicants have been falsely implicated under influence of Bisharat @ Chaman Kinnar, who got the applicant no.1 forcibly emasculated to join the category of persons of common gender and with whom the applicants have inimical terms; that the applicants undertake that they will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicants are in custody since 1.7.2015.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is wrong to say that the victim belonged to community of persons of common gender/Kinnars and his emasculation was done on his own will; that it is wrong to say that the victim ever consented for his emasculation; that mere fact that the victim was a liking for dance etc., it may not be contended that he was a Kinnar or was not entitled to live with his male organ; that the applicant fetched the victim on the pretext of providing him engagement with some dance company as per his hobby and on this assurance the victim stayed with them; that the emasculation of victim was committed by the applicants in collusion with co-accused and medical officer when he was under intoxication of sedative which was fraudulently administered in his tea, after being taken to the medical officer with co-accused Farzana on the pretext of her illness and treatment; that the emasculation of a 24 years old young boy for converting him to the community of persons of common gender/Kinnars is a grievous offence and by alleged consent of victim the offence committed by applicants, may not be undone; that lodging of F.I.R. by applicant no.1 regarding his emasculation has no relevancy and moreover it shows that applicant no.1 admits that he also does not belong to the community of common gender/Kinnars and was converted to the community forcibly as in the case of victim; that in any case if similar offence was committed with applicant no.1, he may not be justified to commit the same crime with the victim.;