The judge said the FIR contains allegations against the applicant of outraging the modesty of the complainant, who identifies as a woman after hormone therapy.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Bombay High Court has refused to discharge Vishal Ingle and held that Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita can apply when the complainant is a transgender who identifies as a woman. Justice Mehroz Pathan passed the order on November 3.
The judge rejected the argument that Section 75 cannot apply because the complainant is a transgender and not a woman. The judge said the complainant identifies as a woman and has taken medicines for hormone changes.
The FIR contains allegations against the applicant of outraging the modesty of the complainant. The complainant identifies as a woman and has undergone treatment for hormone changes. The judge said the FIR contains allegations against the applicant of outraging the modesty of the complainant, who identifies as a woman after hormone therapy. The judge said Section 75 appears to be made out.
The judge said allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained when the victim is a transgender who identifies as a woman.
Mr. Ingle served as an Agniveer. The police registered an offence under Section 75 and Section 296 of the BNS and under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
The judge rejected the argument that Section 18(D) of the Act of 2019 is not made out because the complainant did not have a certificate of identity under the Act. The judge said Section 2(k) shows a person may identify as a transgender even without a certificate of identity. Section 5 provides a route to apply to the District Magistrate for a certificate.
The complainant received a certificate of identity on February 12, 2026. The assault took place on October 28, 2025 and October 30, 2025. The judge said the absence of a certificate at the time of the offence does not bar use of the Act of 2019. The judge said the FIR shows Section 18(D) was invoked and the allegations attract the provisions invoked against the applicant.
The judge refused to discharge the accused.
Published – November 08, 2026 11:10 am IST
