Disposed

Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024BA/162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transgender applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case of alleged harassment and assault of a devotee at Pandharpur temple. The Court held investigation was complete, the applicant was not a flight risk, deprecated stereotypical observations against transgenders in the impugned order, and granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to conditions including weekly reporting to Pandharpur City Police Station till charge-sheet filing.

Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:1739

¶2

13-BA-162-2024.doc
Sonali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2024

¶5

Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Ravi Asabe, for the Applicant.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Prashant Ashok Kundurkar, HC 1231 attached to Pandharpur City
Police Station present.

¶7

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 15^th JANUARY 2024

¶8

P. C.

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Asabe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

¶10

and Ms. Malhotra, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

¶11

2. This is a regular Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the

¶12

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are as

¶13

follows:-

¶14

`1.C.R. No.`	`738 of 2023`
`2.Date of Registration of F.I.R.`	`03/12/23`
`3.Police Station`	`Pandharpur City Police Station`
`4.Sections Applied`	`353, 332, 294, 143, 147, 149 of the` `I.P.C., 1860` `135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,` `1951`
`5.Date of Incident`	`02/12/2023`

¶15

1/4

¶16

13-BA-162-2024.doc
Sonali

¶17

6.Date of Arrest04/12/2023

¶18

3.The allegation against the Applicant who is a transgender is
that the Applicant has harassed and abused one devotee in the
premises of the Shri Vitthal-Rukmini Mandir, Pandharpur. The
allegation also includes that of demanding money, assault and of
forcible disrobing.

¶19

4.Although the Charge-sheet is not filed, it is stated in the
Application seeking remand itself that the investigation is completed.
5.Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has pointed out
Paragraph Nos. 19 to 21 of the Order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur (“impugned Order”) where
some unmerited and unnecessary observations were recorded. The
learned APP, appearing for the State also states that such observations
should not to have been recorded. Such stereotypical and
generalising observations regarding the behaviour of the
transgenders is uncalled for. Transgenders are citizens of this country.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and
personal liberty of all citizens. The right to life includes right to live
with dignity. Therefore, the observations which are recorded in

¶20

2/4

¶21

13-BA-162-2024.doc
Sonali

¶22

Paragraph Nos. 19 to 21 of the impugned Order should not have been
recorded and are not required or material for consideration of a Bail
Application.

¶23

6.Although, the Charge-sheet is not filed, the investigation is
completed. The trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon and is
likely to take a considerably long time. The Applicant does not appear
to be a flight risk.

¶24

7.Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing
conditions. Hence, the following order:-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(a)The Applicant-Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi be
released on bail in connection with C.R. No.738 of 2023
registered with the Pandharpur City Police Station,
Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur on her furnishing
P. R. Bond of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶27

(b)On being released on bail, the Applicant shall
furnish her cell phone number and residential address to
the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in
case there is any change.

¶28

3/4

¶29

13-BA-162-2024.doc
Sonali

¶30

(c)The Applicant shall report to the Pandharpur City
Police Station, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur once
every week, on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and
1.00 p.m. till the filing of the Charge-sheet.

¶31

(d)The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

¶32

him/her from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police

¶33

Officer.

¶34

(e)The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence

¶35

and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or
any witnesses in any manner.

¶36

(f)The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The
Applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court and shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶37

(g)The Applicant shall surrender her passport, if any,
to the Investigating Officer.

¶38

8. The Bail Application is disposed of.

¶39

 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶40

4/4

Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Sand @ Gujjar @ Santosh Sakharam Prajapati Vs State of Maharashtra

Somnath Vishnupant @ Vishnu Shelar Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjay @Sanjubaba Navsu Kawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Prashant Shivaji Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra

Danish Muruddin Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Sunil Lavangare Vs State of Maharashtra