MUMBAI, Nov. 9 -- The Bombay high court held that allegations of sexual assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained even when the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman. The court observed that the self-perceived gender "cannot be questioned at least at the stage of considering an accused's discharge application". A single-judge bench of Justice Mehroz Pathan on November 3 rejected the discharge application of Vishal Ingle, an Agniveer in the Army, who was accused of sexually assaulting a transgender woman. It held that even if the victim did not possess a certificate of transgender identity at the time of the alleged incident, it would not prevent the victim from invoking the penal provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The case arose from an FIR registered at Akot Rural police station on November 1, 2025. The complainant alleged that Ingle befriended her, proposed marriage, had sexual intercourse with her on October 28, 2025, and sexually assaulted her two days later. The FIR invoked Sections 75 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 296 (obscenity) of the BNS, along with relevant provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Ingle moved the high court this year through advocate Anil Thakkar, seeking discharge. He argued that for Section 75 of the BNS to be invoked, the victim must be a woman. Since the complainant is a transgender, Ingle said that no offence under the prescribed law is made out against him. He also pointed out that the complainant obtained the transgender identity certificate on February 12, 2026, after the alleged incident. Additional public prosecutor Swati V. Kolhe, appearing for the State, submitted that transgender persons are entitled to self-identify their gender. The complainant, she said, identifies as a woman, has allegedly undergone hormonal treatment to further her gender identity, and is entitled to seek legal recourse regarding the alleged sexual assault by Ingle. She also pointed out that Section 75(1) of the BNS does not expressly stipulate that the victim must be a woman. Rejecting the argument regarding the delayed identity certificate, the court observed that Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, indicates that a person may identify as a transgender, including a transgender man or a transgender woman, even without a certificate of identity. It noted that the certificate issued under Section 5 of the Act of 2019 was only an enabling mechanism for the issuance of a certificate of identity for formal recognition. "Merely because the complainant did not possess an identity certificate at the time of the alleged commission of the offence would not, by itself, preclude the invocation of the penal provisions of the Transgender Act of 2019," the bench observed. The court relied on a Supreme Court's 2014 judgment, which held that "it is entirely for the transgender to self-identify her gender and that this self determination cannot be questioned by others". It further noted that Section 4 (2) of the Act, which expressly recognised a transgender person's right to self-perceived gender identity, was in force when the alleged incident took place last year. "Therefore, allegations of assault and outraging modesty of a woman can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman," the bench concluded....