Section 69 BNS: Can A Transgender Woman File Case For Sex On False Promise Of Marriage? Allahabad HC Clarifies

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a transgender woman does not fall within the definition of “woman” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, even if she has undergone sex reassignment surgery.

Section 69 of the BNS criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman by employing deceitful means or making a promise to marry without intending to fulfil it, where the act does not amount to rape. 

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that the provision applies to a “female human being” and that a transgender woman continues to fall within the statutory category of a transgender person. Court clarified that its interpretation was confined to Section 69 BNS and would not extend to any other offence.

For the act of sexually abusing a transgender woman by deceitful means, court held that Section 18 (d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, will apply, which provides that any harm or injury, including physical abuse and sexual abuse, would be punishable under that section with imprisonment of up to two years.

Court made the observations while granting bail to a man accused of entering into a physical relationship with a transgender woman on a false promise of marriage. It held that no prima facie case under Section 69 BNS was made out against him.

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, the complainant transgender woman had been in a relationship with the accused for more than one and a half years on his promise to marry her. He allegedly took more than Rs 5 lakh before refusing to marry her. His family members also allegedly scolded her.

The accused's counsel argued that the complainant had been assigned male at birth and underwent vulval reconstruction surgery on April 11, 2023. Relying on a medical panel's report dated August 19, 2026, counsel submitted that she had changed her genitalia but did not have a uterus. He contended that Section 69 could not apply because Section 2(36) of the BNS defines a woman as a “female human being of any age”.

Opposing bail, the State argued that a person who had undergone genital surgery and had female hormones could fall within the definition of a woman despite not having a uterus. The State also maintained that the allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage warranted prosecution.

Court appointed advocate Mayuri Mehrotra as amicus curiae to assist it on the legal question of whether a transgender woman would be considered a woman for the purpose of Section 69 BNS.

Examining the statutory framework, Court referred to Section 2(10) BNS, which defines gender by reference to male, female or transgender persons, and Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It noted that the latter provision had been amended on March 30, 2026, but held that the unamended definition applied because the incident predated the amendment.

Court said the definition under the 2019 Act includes transgender men and women irrespective of whether they have undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy. It concluded that undergoing such surgery does not change the person's classification as a transgender person for the purpose of Section 69.

The Bench also discussed the two judgments cited by the amicus curiae. It held that the Uttarakhand High Court's decision in Ms. X v. State of Uttarakhand would not apply because it predated the BNS framework, which separately identifies transgender persons. It also considered the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Viswanathan Krishnamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh no longer relevant because the statutory definitions of gender and woman under the BNS had not been considered in that case.

Court further referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs' Report No. 246, which recommended bringing transgender women within the scope of the BNS provision concerning rape. It noted that the recommendation had not been accepted by Parliament and that the statutory wording remained unchanged.

Applying its interpretation to the bail application, Court noted that the complainant's statements indicated that she had disclosed her transgender identity to the accused before entering the relationship. It concluded that no prima facie case under Section 69 BNS was made out.

Court directed the accused's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and refraining from further criminal activity.

It also directed the trial court to transmit the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System.

Court clarified that its interpretation of “woman” was limited to Section 69 BNS and did not extend to any other offence.

Case Title: Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P.

Order Date: October 15, 2026.

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal