Facts of the Case:

The case revolves around FIR registered at the Women Police Station in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (the Act). The petitioner, after being accused, approached the High Court for interim bail, which was granted on August 14, 2024. The petitioner was accused by the victim-prosecutrix, who alleged that she met him through Facebook during the COVID-19 lockdown. They developed a relationship, with the petitioner reportedly insisting on marriage.

The victim disclosed her transgender identity to the petitioner from the outset. Despite this, the petitioner allegedly pressured her to undergo gender reassignment surgery to facilitate their marriage. After the surgery, the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her, leading to the filing of the FIR. The petitioner had sought interim bail before he could be apprehended, and upon being granted interim bail, he was required to join the investigation.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Contentions:

The petitioner argued that no substantial case was made out under Section 69 of the BNS and contended that if any case existed, it would pertain to Section 18(d) of the Act, which carries a maximum punishment of two years.

He emphasized that the victim had not undergone a medical examination to substantiate her claims regarding the gender reassignment surgery. The petitioner contended that allegations of maintaining physical relations were false, arguing that any such relations occurred prior to the victim’s surgery. Therefore, the relevant laws may not apply. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to present evidence proving the nature of the relationship after the alleged surgery.

Respondent’s Contentions:

The Respondent state asserted that although the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, the nature of the allegations constituted a serious crime that merited judicial custody.

The respondent argued that there was sufficient evidence suggesting the petitioner exploited the victim under the false promise of marriage. The respondent pointed out that the victim’s Aadhaar card indicated her gender as female, reinforcing the applicability of Section 69 of the BNS against the petitioner. The state expressed concern that the petitioner might attempt to evade justice if released on bail.

Contentions of the Victim (represented Legal Aid Counsel):

The victim’s legal counsel echoed the concerns raised by the respondent, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.

Court’s Observations:

The High Court examined the case’s facts and the arguments from both sides. The court noted that the petitioner had complied with joining the investigation and highlighted the lack of evidence establishing any wrongdoing post-surgery.

The court referenced Section 69 of the BNS, emphasizing that it applies only if the complainant is a woman. Given that the victim identified as transgender, the applicability of this provision was called into question.

The court acknowledged that while the FIR alleged heinous crimes, the prosecution had yet to substantiate its claims with convincing evidence. It reiterated the principle of the presumption of innocence and emphasized that an accused person should not be incarcerated indefinitely without solid evidence against them. The court noted the importance of ensuring that the accused would attend trial, suggesting that appropriate bail conditions could address concerns regarding flight risk.

Court’s Decision:

The High Court ultimately ruled to uphold the interim bail granted on August 14, 2024, subject to specific conditions. The court clarified that if the petitioner violated these conditions, the prosecution could seek bail cancellation.

– Deeksha Rai