Retransmission of prior news not offence under BNS 353; state must implement transgender welfare schemes for dignity and inclusion.

ORDER :

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 353 of BNS 2023 in Crime No.73 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is a You Tuber and is alleged to have published a video in digital media concerning an incident of self-immolation by a transgender individual within the precincts of a police station. It is further alleged that, in the said video, the petitioner projected, albeit incorrectly, that the police had collected details of transgender persons based on complaints that they were extracting money from the public through coercive means. During the relevant period, one transgender person committed self-immolation and succumbed to injuries. According to the petitioner, the said incident was not adequately reported in mainstream media, resulting in injustice to the transgender community. On the basis of the said video, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for an offence under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had merely retransmitted the content and that the message did not originate from him. It was further contended that no incriminating material was found in the said transmission. Upon becoming aware of the contents, the petitioner had immediately removed the video and prevented its further dissemination. The petitioner’s mobile phone has already been seized by the investigating agency, and therefore, no custodial interrogation is necessary.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the petitioner had propagated false information against the police and the Government, creating a misleading impression that the grievances of the transgender community were not addressed by the authorities. It was further submitted that there were serious allegations against certain members of the transgender community regarding illegal extraction of money from the public through intimidation.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The Investigating Officer was directed to produce the alleged offending material, which was accordingly placed before the Court in the form of a pen drive. Upon viewing the contents, this Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner is limited to retransmission of the news relating to the self-immolation incident. Even as per the FIR, the accusation is that the petitioner published or shared the said information. It is also evident that similar news had already been disseminated by several other media outlets prior to the petitioner’s transmission. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions.

7. At the same time, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the tragic incident of self-immolation, which shocks the judicial conscience. The members of the transgender community continue to face entrenched social stigma, resulting in deprivation of basic dignity and meaningful livelihood opportunities.

8. Transgenders are also children of god. On the flip side, Transgenders screenout their nuts and kooks. Transgenders are tolerate ambiguity and recognize their originality and dis