The Allahabad High Court (Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal) held that the word “woman” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)—which penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise to marry—refers strictly to a female human being and does not extend to transgender women, even after Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Granting bail to the accused, the High Court clarified that while Section 69 BNS is inapplicable, sexual abuse against transgender individuals remains punishable under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Date of Decision: October 17, 2026
Subject Area: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 2(35) & Section 69) | Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (Section 2(k) & Section 18(d)) | Statutory Interpretation of “Woman” | Grant of Bail
Core Legal Principles Established by the High Court
1. Statutory Definition of “Woman” Under Section 69 BNS
- Under Section 2(35) read with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the word “woman” is restricted strictly to a female human being.
- Even after undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), a person assigned male at birth remains legally categorized as a transgender person under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and does not fall within the gender definition of “female human being” for the purpose of gender-specific sexual offenses under BNS.
2. Legislative Intent & Rejection of Parliamentary Recommendations
- The High Court highlighted that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2023) had explicitly recommended amending the proposed BNS to bring transgender women within the purview of rape and deceitful sexual assault provisions.
- Because Parliament did not accept this recommendation when passing the BNS, the court held that judges cannot judicially expand gender-specific penal statutes beyond the clear, explicit words chosen by the Legislature.
3. Exclusive Penal Remedy Under Section 18(d) of the 2019 Act
- The Court clarified that transgender individuals facing physical or sexual abuse are not left without legal recourse.
- Sexual harm, injury, or coercion against a transgender person attracts prosecution under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which prescribes a specific penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
Case Summary & Procedural Outcome
| Parameter | Case Details & Legal Finding |
| Accused / Applicant | Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir (Booked by Bareilly Police). |
| Complainant Profile | Transgender woman (born male, underwent vulval reconstruction in April 2023; had not formally applied for gender change certificate). |
| Allegations | Accused established a 1.5-year relationship on a false promise of marriage, took ₹5 lakh, and subsequently refused marriage. |
| Medical Evidence | Medical Board confirmed complainant was male with altered external genitalia, without a uterus. |
| High Court Ruling | Bail Granted: Prima facie offense under Section 69 BNS is not made out due to gender-definition bar. |
Key Quotes from the Judgment
“The definition of transgender person clearly shows that even if a person was assigned gender as a male at the time of birth and after sex reassignment surgery, he became female… transgender man/woman will still be a transgender and not the male human being or female human being. The word ‘woman’ mentioned in Section 69 of BNS includes only female human being.”
“Section 18(d) of the Act, 2019 provides that any harm, injury, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, would be punishable under that section… Therefore, specific provision providing punishment for sexual abuse of a transgender has been made.”
— Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal