The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an allegation of sexual intercourse induced by a promise of marriage cannot prima facie stand where both the accused and the complainant were already married to other people and had full knowledge of their respective marital status.
Justice Sandeep Sharma made the observation while granting bail to Vinod Kumar, an astrologer accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old woman after allegedly assuring her that he would marry her.
The Court noted that neither Kumar nor the woman had obtained a divorce from their respective spouses. In those circumstances, it found that the basic premise of a promise to marry was difficult to establish at the preliminary stage.
The Court observed that there was essentially no question of a marriage promise when both parties knew they were still legally married and had not dissolved their existing marriages.
The case arose from an FIR registered on June 22, 2026, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including through a false promise of marriage.
According to the complaint, the woman had married in 2017 but subsequently separated from her husband following matrimonial disputes. She met Kumar, an astrologer, in 2022.
She alleged that Kumar examined her horoscope and told her that she would not have a happy married life. He allegedly encouraged her to divorce her husband, while claiming that his own relationship with his wife was strained and that he would marry her after she obtained a divorce.
The woman alleged that Kumar later established physical relations with her on the assurance that they would marry. She further claimed that she eventually discovered his alleged relationships with other women and that he assaulted her after she objected.
The High Court, however, found that the circumstances placed before it did not persuade the Court, at the bail stage, that the alleged sexual relations were established against her wishes.
A significant factor was the length of the relationship and the absence of any complaint during the period in which the two continued to meet.
The Court noted that the woman had been meeting Kumar since 2022 and that, despite the alleged physical relationship continuing over several years, no complaint had been made until the FIR was eventually registered.
The prosecution opposed bail, pointing to 23 criminal cases against Kumar and alleging that he had threatened the complainant. The woman too opposed his release, expressing concern for her safety.
The Court, however, recorded that Kumar had already been acquitted in 21 of those 23 cases. Most of those cases related to offences under the Excise Act.
Kumar was consequently granted bail on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh, along with two local sureties for the same amount.
The bail comes with conditions requiring him not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence and prohibiting him from leaving India without the Court’s permission.
The ruling was passed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
