Married Woman Accused Man Of Rape Over ‘Promise To Marry’; HP High Court Says ‘No Question Of Promise To Marry’ When Both Were Married

Can a married woman claim sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage when she knew the accused was also married? The Himachal Pradesh High Court found that neither had divorced their respective spouses and held that, prima facie, no case under Section 69 BNS was made out.

HIMACHAL PRADESH: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to an astrologer accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old married woman on an alleged promise of marriage, observing that both the woman and the accused were already married to other people and knew about each other's marital status.

Justice Sandeep Sharma was hearing the bail petition of Vinod Kumar, who had been in custody since 17 August 2026. The FIR was registered on 22 June 2026 at Women Police Station, Bilaspur, under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to the complaint, the woman married Manoj Kumar in 2017 but later started living separately because of matrimonial disputes. In 2022, she came into contact with the accused, an astrologer. She alleged that after examining her horoscope, he persuaded her to divorce her husband by saying that she had no chance of a happy family life with him.

The woman further alleged that the accused told her that his own relationship with his wife was also strained and that he would marry her after she obtained a divorce. She claimed that he thereafter established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She also alleged that when she later came to know about his relationships with other women and objected, he assaulted her.

The State opposed bail and argued that there was material suggesting that the accused had sexually assaulted her against her wishes. It also pointed to several earlier criminal cases against him and claimed that he had threatened the woman.

The High Court, however, examined her statement and observed that she had voluntarily joined the accused and continued meeting him from 2022. The Court also noted that no complaint had been lodged during this period and the FIR was registered only on 22 June 2026.

The Court observed:

“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.”

More importantly, the Court considered the fact that both parties were legally married to other persons and neither had obtained a divorce. It observed:

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

The Court further noted that the complaint itself suggested that the alleged promise to marry was conditional upon the woman first obtaining a divorce. On this basis, it held that prima facie no case under Section 69 BNS was made out against the accused.

The prosecution also relied upon the accused's previous criminal cases. The record showed that more than 23 cases had been registered against him. However, the High Court noted material showing that he had already been acquitted in 21 cases, most of which related to the Excise Act.

The Court stressed that an accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved according to law. Keeping a person in jail indefinitely during trial, before guilt is established, could affect the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court accordingly granted Vinod Kumar regular bail on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount. The Court directed him to attend the trial, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and not leave India without the Court's prior permission.

Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and should not be treated as findings on the final merits of the criminal case.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Both were married, and she knew it. Yet the man still faced a serious rape allegation over an alleged promise to marry.
• The High Court said there was prima facie “no question of promise to marry” when neither had divorced their spouse.
• She had been meeting him since 2022, yet no complaint came during that period.
• His past cases were used against him, despite the Court noting he had already been acquitted in 21.
• For men, an accusation can mean jail before guilt. The Court refused to let pre-trial custody become punishment and granted bail.