Finding no prima facie case under Section 69 BNS on allegations of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, the Allahabad High Court expressly confined its interpretation to that provision and not to any other offence. The Court granted bail to the applicant after finding that no prima facie case under Section 69 BNS was made out. Its ruling did not dispose of the prosecution or determine liability under other offences.
Reading Sections 2(35) and 2(10) BNS with Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the Court held that a trans woman remains within the definition of “transgender person,” even after sex reassignment surgery, and is not a “woman” specifically for Section 69 BNS. The Court pointed to Section 18(d) of the 2019 Act as a specific provision punishing abuse of transgender persons, including sexual abuse. This observation was not a finding that the applicant had committed that offence.
The Court expressly restricted its observations to the interpretation of “woman” under Section 69 BNS. Bail was subject to a personal bond, two sureties, cooperation with proceedings and prohibitions on influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or engaging in criminal activity, breach could lead to cancellation.
Briefly, Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir sought bail before the Allahabad High Court in a case registered under Sections 69, 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainant, a transgender woman, alleged that he had maintained a relationship with her for more than one and a half years on a promise of marriage, established physical relations with her, taken more than Rs. 5 lakhs from her and subsequently refused to marry her.
In her statements, she described having undergone sex reassignment surgery and stated that she had disclosed her transgender identity to the applicant before entering the relationship. These were allegations and statements considered at the bail stage, not findings following trial.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal examined whether a transgender woman falls within the meaning of “woman” for the purposes of Section 69 BNS, which penalises sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the intercourse does not amount to rape.
Reading Sections 2(35) and 2(10) BNS with the unamended Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the Court interpreted transgender persons as having a separate statutory identity. It observed that a trans woman remains covered by the definition of “transgender person” even after sex reassignment surgery.
The Court applied the unamended definition because, according to the judgment, the incident preceded the amendment dated March 30, 2026. The Court further observed that Section 18(d) of the 2019 Act specifically provides punishment for abuse of transgender persons, including sexual abuse.
