No offence of rape on promise of marriage when victim and accused already married to other people: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that a promise of marriage may not amount to the offence of deceitful sexual intercourse when both the accused and the victim are already married to other people and were aware of each other’s marital status [Vinod Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh].

Justice Sandeep Sharma made the observation while granting bail to one Vinod Kumar, an astrologer, accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old woman on the alleged promise of marriage.

In the order dated September 3, the Court noted that both the accused and the woman were married to other people and neither had divorced their respective spouses. It therefore found that there was prima facie no question of a promise to marry.

"There was no question of promise to marry, especially when factum of marriage of the petitioner as well victim/prosecutrix was in the know of the victim/prosecutrix as well as bail petitioner. Once victim/prosecutrix as well as petitioner had not taken divorce from their respective spouses, they otherwise could not have solemnize marriage," held the Court.

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in June 22, 2026, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with sexual intercourse through deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage.

According to the complaint, the woman had married in 2017 but later separated from her husband due to matrimonial disputes.

She had met the accused, an astrologer, in 2022. She alleged that he had persuaded her to divorce her husband after examining her horoscope, which he claimed showed no prospects of a happy marriage.

He had also allegedly told her that he had strained relations with his wife and would marry her after her divorce.

The woman claimed that the accused had subsequently established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She later learnt that he was allegedly in relationships with other women and, after she objected, he allegedly assaulted her.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court said it was not persuaded, at the bail stage, that the accused had sexually assaulted the woman against her wishes.

It observed that the woman had continued meeting the accused for several years before filing the complaint.

"Victim/prosecutrix of her own went to show her horoscope to the petitioner, who allegedly persuaded her to take divorce from (her husband). Victim/prosecutrix had been meeting bail petitioner since the year 2022 and during this period, bail petitioner allegedly made physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, but interestingly, no complaint whatsoever of any kind ever came to be lodged by the victim/prosecutrix," noted the Court.

The State opposed the bail, citing 23 criminal cases against the accused and alleging that he had threatened the woman. The woman also opposed his release, claiming that it would threaten her life.

However, the Court noted that the accused had been acquitted in 21 of the 23 cases, most of which were under the Excise Act (law regulating alcohol-related offences).

The Court ultimately granted the accused bail on a ₹2 lakh personal bond and two local sureties of the same amount. The bail is subject to conditions including not influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or leaving India without permission.

Advocate Imran Khan represented the accused.

Additional Advocates General Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar along with Deputy Advocates General Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu appeared for State.

[Read Orders]