Legal Context and Case Background
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently addressed a nuanced legal issue concerning allegations of sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court examined whether such promises could amount to deceit when both parties involved are already married to others.
Justice Sandeep Sharma presided over the proceedings, ultimately deciding to grant bail to Vinod Kumar, an astrologer accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old woman under the purported promise of marriage. The court’s decision, dated September 3, emphasized that both individuals were aware of each other’s existing marriages, and neither had pursued divorce from their respective spouses. Thus, the court found no prima facie case of a deceitful promise to marry.
Judicial Observations
Justice Sharma articulated, “There was no question of a promise to marry, especially when the fact of marriage of both the petitioner and the victim/prosecutrix was known to each of them. Without divorcing their respective spouses, they could not have solemnized a marriage.” This observation was crucial in the court’s rationale for granting bail.
Details of the Complaint
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on June 22, 2026, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which covers sexual intercourse through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage. The complainant, married since 2017 but separated due to marital issues, met the accused in 2022. She alleged that the astrologer examined her horoscope and advised her to divorce, promising marriage thereafter. She claimed that physical relations were established based on this promise, but later discovered the accused’s involvement with other women. Upon her objections, she alleged he assaulted her.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision
In assessing the case, the court noted the woman’s continued association with the accused over several years before filing a complaint, undermining the immediacy and severity of the alleged misconduct. Justice Sharma remarked, “Victim/prosecutrix of her own went to show her horoscope to the petitioner… and had been meeting the bail petitioner since 2022, during which physical relations were allegedly established on the pretext of marriage.”
More Read
While the State opposed bail, citing the accused’s history of 23 criminal cases and potential threats to the complainant, the court observed that he had been acquitted in 21 cases, primarily involving violations of the Excise Act.
Bail Conditions and Representation
Ultimately, the court granted bail with a ₹2 lakh personal bond and two local sureties of the same amount. The conditions included prohibiting the accused from influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or 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, represented the State.
