Section 75 BNS, the sexual harassment provision meant to protect women, is not out of reach merely because the complainant is a transgender person, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held, refusing to discharge an Agniveer serving in the Indian Army.
Nagpur: A transgender complainant’s identification as a woman cannot be questioned while the accused is seeking discharge, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has held, dismissing a criminal revision application against the rejection of a discharge plea [Vishal S/o Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra].
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan pronounced the judgment on November 3, 2026 in Criminal Revision Application No. 270 of 2026, filed by the accused, Vishal Sunil Ingle, against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, dated July 6, 2026.
Who is a “woman” under the BNS?
Advocate Anil Thakkar, for the applicant, argued that Section 75 BNS applies only where the victim is a woman, and that Section 2(35) of the BNS defines “woman” as a female human being of any age. As the complainant is a transgender person, he submitted, the offence was not attracted.
He added that the offence under the Transgender Persons Act was not made out either, because the complainant obtained a transgender identity certificate only on February 12, 2026, after the alleged incidents. Taken at face value, he further argued, any relationship was consensual and on a promise of marriage, and the BNS has no provision corresponding to Section 377 IPC.
Additional Public Prosecutor Swati V. Kolhe opposed the plea. Section 75(1), she submitted, does not expressly stipulate that the victim must be a woman, transgender persons are entitled to self-identify their gender, and the complainant, who identifies as a woman, could seek legal recourse.
The FIR and the charges
The FIR was lodged on November 1, 2025 at Akot (Rural) Police Station in Akola district. It describes the complainant as a transgender person who had begun living as a woman, and alleges that the applicant, an Agniveer in the Indian Army, befriended the complainant and proposed marriage. On that pretext, the complaint says, he had forcible sexual intercourse on October 28, 2025, and again on October 30, 2025, while verbally abusing the complainant.
Crime No. 493/2025 was registered under Sections 75, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. These remain allegations to be tested at trial; the accused is presumed innocent, and the High Court’s ruling is confined to the discharge stage.
A later certificate does not undo the offence
The Court looked first at Section 2(k) of the 2019 Act, which covers transgender men and women whether or not they have undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy. On the argument about the February 2026 certificate, it held:
“Merely because the Complainant did not possess a certificate of identity under Section 6 of the Act of 2019 at the time of the alleged commission of the offence by the Applicant would not, by itself, preclude the invocation of the penal provisions of the Transgender Act of 2019.”
Self-identification and the 2026 amendment
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India for the position that it is for a transgender person to self-identify their gender. It noted that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which received Presidential assent on March 30, 2026, omitted Section 4(2), the provision recognising the right to self-perceived gender identity. That provision, however, was in force on the dates of the alleged incidents and of the FIR, and the acts alleged were an offence under the law as it then stood. The Court held:
“The perusal of the FIR would show that the Complainant/Victim has identified herself to be a woman and the aforesaid self determination cannot be questioned at least at the present stage while accused is seeking discharge.”
Consent is for the trial
The FIR carried direct allegations against the applicant, the Court found, and the chargesheet showed sufficient material to proceed. It concluded:
“In my considered opinion, therefore, the allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman. The submission that even if the allegations are taken to be true, the same appears to be consensual is a matter to be evaluated during the course of trial.”
Describing the Sessions Court’s order as “well-reasoned”, the High Court dismissed the revision application. Whether the prosecution can prove the charges, it said, is a matter for trial.
What the ruling leaves open
The ruling is among the first to consider whether women-specific protections in the BNS extend to transgender women, a question on which courts have so far differed: the Allahabad High Court, in a bail matter last month, held that a transgender woman is not a “woman” under Section 69 BNS. The Nagpur Bench grounds its view in self-identification under NALSA and the 2019 Act as it stood before the 2026 amendment, so the omission of Section 4(2) is likely to shape how such cases are argued for incidents after March 30, 2026.
Challenges to the 2026 Amendment Act are pending before the Supreme Court. The finding is prima facie, made at the discharge stage, and leaves all factual questions, including consent, to the trial court.
Case Title: Vishal S/o Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 270 of 2026, 2026:BHC-NAG:15063
Bench: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026 (reserved on October 27, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate Anil Thakkar for the applicant; APP Swati V. Kolhe for the State
![[RG Kar Rape-Murder] "Don't Use Regulatory Power to Terrorize & Arrest Protestors": Cal HC Blasts Mamata Govt. & Releases Student Arrested For Leading March Towards Secretariat](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-405.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
