Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the Single-Judge Bench, granted bail to the accused, who faced charges under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of deceiving a transgender person into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage. The Court highlighted that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sexual relations based on false promises of marriage, applies only if the complainant is a woman.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the Single-Judge Bench, granted bail to the accused, who faced charges under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
The Court clarified that while transgender individuals are included in the legal definition of ‘gender,’ they cannot claim the legal identity of male or female for cases under Section 69 of the BNS, which is specifically intended for women.
“This provision explicitly states that anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman, under false pretenses of marriage and without the intention to fulfill that promise, will face imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine,” the Court noted.
The case involved a transgender complainant who alleged that during the COVID-19 lockdown, she connected with the accused via Facebook, leading to a relationship. She claimed that despite the accused being aware of her gender identity, he promised to marry her, and his parents suggested she undergo a sex reassignment surgery.
After undergoing the surgery, she alleged that the accused refused to marry her and arranged to marry someone else. Upon reviewing the provisions of the BNS, the Single Judge ruled that Section 69 could not be applied in this instance, as it pertains exclusively to women.
The Court emphasized that the BNS distinctly defines “woman” and “transgender” as separate legal identities. Since the complainant had acknowledged being transgender, the Court concurred with the defense counsel’s argument that Section 69 was not applicable to the accused.
However, the Court recognized that the accused could still face charges under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which imposes penalties of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years for physical or sexual abuse of transgender individuals.
The Bench also noted that the accused had cooperated during the investigation, and there was no evidence indicating a sexual relationship between him and the complainant after her surgery. Moreover, the Court found no proof of any attempt by the accused to initiate a physical relationship post-surgery, nor was there a need for further evidence collection from the accused.
“The case will be decided by the lower court based on the overall evidence presented. However, this Court sees no grounds to remand the bail petitioner to judicial custody, particularly since nothing further needs to be recovered from him,” the Court stated in its ruling.
In July, the accused was arrested following a complaint by a transgender individual. The defense argued that the allegation of a sex change was still unverified, as the complainant had declined a medical examination. The Court had initially granted interim bail, and this latest order upheld the bail, leaving the lower court to determine the merits of the case.
