The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Men in a case involving allegations that he established sexual relations with a transgender woman on a false promise of marriage before subsequently refusing to marry her. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that a transgender woman does not fall within the definition of “woman” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for the purposes of that provision. The Court clarified that its interpretation was confined to Section 69 and did not determine the applicability of any other offence.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered at Izzatnagar police station in Bareilly under Sections 69, 352 and 351(3) of the BNS. According to the allegations recorded in the order, the complainant, a transgender woman, had been in a relationship with the applicant for more than one and a half years on an alleged promise of marriage. She also alleged that he had taken more than ₹5 lakh, established a physical relationship with her and subsequently refused to marry her.
The applicant sought bail, arguing that Section 69 applies to sexual intercourse with a woman following a false promise of marriage and that the statutory definition of “woman” does not include a transgender woman. The State opposed the application, while advocate Mayuri Mehrotra assisted the court as amicus curiae on the legal question.
Justice Deshwal examined Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without the intention of fulfilling it, where the intercourse does not amount to rape. Section 2(35) defines a woman as “a female human being of any age.”
The court also considered Section 2(10), which addresses gender, and Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, as applicable to the incident. It noted that the latter provision included trans men and trans women, whether or not they had undergone sex reassignment surgery.
The judge observed:
“The word 'woman' mentioned in Section 69 of BNS includes only female human being.”
The court considered earlier decisions of the Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, along with the arguments advanced by the amicus curiae. It concluded that the interpretation adopted in the earlier cases relied upon by the amicus did not govern the present question under the BNS.
The order further explained:
“Therefore, specific provision providing punishment for sexual abuse of a transgender has been made under Section 18(d) of Act, 2019.”
Section 18(d) provides for punishment for specified forms of harm and abuse against transgender persons, including physical and sexual abuse.
On the facts presented at the bail stage, the court held that a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS was not made out against the applicant. It clarified that this interpretation was limited to Section 69 and did not extend to other offences.
Accordingly, the court allowed Mohd Saakir’s bail application, directing his release upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and trial and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36167 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Decision Date: October 15, 2026
