Section 69 BNS | Transgender Woman Cannot Invoke False Promise of Marriage Provision Against Man: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail

UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused of establishing physical relations with a transgender woman on an alleged false promise of marriage, holding that a transgender woman does not fall within the definition of "woman" under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for the purpose of this offence.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing the man's bail application, examined whether Section 69 BNS could apply to a transgender woman who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery.

According to the complaint, the woman and the applicant had been in a relationship for more than one-and-a-half years. She alleged that the man established physical relations with her after promising marriage, later refused to marry her and had taken more than ₹5 lakh from her.
Read Also:- Settlement Pressure on Men in 69 BNS Cases: Marriage or Jail, Police Arrest Threats, and FIR-Based Extortion

The applicant's counsel argued that the complainant had disclosed her transgender identity before entering the relationship. Her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS also mentioned that she had undergone sex-reassignment surgery on April 11, 2023.

The defence relied on a medical panel report dated August 19, 2026, and submitted that Section 69 BNS applies specifically to sexual intercourse with a woman. It argued that the offence's essential legal requirements were not satisfied in this case.

The State opposed the bail application, arguing that a transgender woman should not be denied legal protection merely because she was assigned male at birth and later underwent surgery.

Read Also:- Delhi HC Questions: Why Does the BNS Rape Law Recognise Only Women as Victims? Who Will Protect Men or Transgender Persons Facing Sexual Violence?

Considering the legal issue, the High Court appointed Advocate Mayuri Mehrotra as amicus curiae. She referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Viswanathan Krishnamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and the amendments to the Transgender Persons law.

The High Court examined Section 2(35) BNS, which defines a woman as a female human being of any age, along with Section 2(10) BNS and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The Court made a significant observation:

"The above 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 or if a person was assigned gender as a female at the time of birth and after sex reassignment surgery, he became male, then it is clear that transgender man/woman will still be a transgender person and not a male human being or a female human being.

The word 'woman' mentioned in Section 69 of BNS includes only a female human being.”

The Court also examined Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons Act, which deals with abuse against transgender persons, and noted that Section 69 BNS had not been specifically amended to include transgender women.

After examining the statutory definitions and circumstances, the High Court held that a prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS was not made out against the applicant.

However, the Court made clear that its interpretation applied only to Section 69 BNS and should not be applied to other criminal offences.

The Court clarified:

"It is made clear that the above observation is confined to the interpretation of woman under Section 69 of BNS and not for any other offence"

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused man, subject to conditions. The decision was limited to the bail proceedings and did not amount to an acquittal or a final finding on the allegations.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• False Marriage Promise Case Against Man: A man faced criminal allegations over a relationship, with an additional claim involving more than ₹5 lakh.
• Section 69 BNS Not Attracted: High Court found the provision prima facie inapplicable. Why was the man facing prosecution under it?
• Sex-Reassignment Surgery Not Enough: The court held that surgery did not bring the complainant within the definition of "woman" under Section 69 BNS.
• Man Forced to Fight for Bail: Despite the legal question over Section 69 BNS, the accused had to approach the High Court for relief.
• Men Deserve Protection From Misapplied Laws: Criminal provisions cannot be stretched to prosecute men when their essential ingredients are missing. Legal safeguards must protect accused men too.