Promise of Marriage Not Rape When Both Parties Already Married: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a promise of marriage may not amount to the offence of deceitful s*xual 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 Vinod Kumar, an astrologer, who was accused of s*xually assaulting a 31-year-old woman on the alleged promise of marriage. In its 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, and it therefore found that there was prima facie no question of a promise to marry.

What the Court Observed

The Court held that there was no question of a promise to marry, especially since the factum of marriage of both the petitioner and the victim was known to each other, and since neither had taken divorce from their respective spouses, they could not otherwise have solemnised marriage.

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on June 22, 2026, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with s*xual intercourse through deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage. Marital Rape Case: Why Supreme Court Will First Hear Karnataka ‘S*x Slave’ Appeal.

Background of the Case

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, and alleged that he had persuaded her to divorce her husband after examining her horoscope, which he claimed showed no prospects of a happy marriage. Entering Woman’s House at Night, Lifting Her Clothes Not Enough To Prove Attempt To Rape: Jharkhand HC.

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.

Court's Reasoning on Bail

The Court said it was not persuaded, at the bail stage, that the accused had s*xually assaulted the woman against her wishes, and observed that the woman had continued meeting the accused for several years before filing the complaint.

It noted that the victim had gone of her own accord to show her horoscope to the petitioner, who allegedly persuaded her to take divorce from her husband, and that despite meeting the bail petitioner since 2022 and allegedly having physical relations with him on the pretext of marriage, no complaint of any kind was ever lodged by her during this period.

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

Bail Granted With Conditions

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

Advocate Imran Khan represented the accused, while Additional Advocates General Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, along with Deputy Advocates General Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu, appeared for the State.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 11, 2026 11:29 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).