HP HC Specifies When No Offence of Rape Made Out on Promise of Marriage

Summary: The Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, in Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, considered a bail petition arising from allegations of sexual assault on the alleged promise of marriage. The Court noted that both the petitioner and the victim/prosecutrix were already married to other persons and were aware of each other’s marital status. It observed that neither had obtained a divorce from their respective spouses and, in those circumstances, there was prima facie no question of a promise to marry.

The Court further noted that the victim/prosecutrix had been meeting the petitioner since 2022 and had alleged that physical relations were maintained on the pretext of marriage. However, no complaint had been lodged until 22 June 2026. On the material available at the stage of consideration of bail, the Court was not persuaded that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim/prosecutrix against her wishes and held that, prima facie, no case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) was made out.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s contention regarding his previous cases and noted that he had already been acquitted in 21 of the 23 cases referred to. Relying upon principles governing bail, including the presumption of innocence, personal liberty and the requirement that bail discretion be exercised judicially, the Court granted regular bail subject to specified conditions.

The decision also referred to Supreme Court authorities including Dataram Singh, Sanjay Chandra and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. The petitioner was accordingly ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

HP HC Examines When Prima Facie No Offence Under Section 69 BNS Made Out on Alleged Promise of Marriage

Case Background and Allegations

The Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, in a significant judgment titled Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 1590 of 2026 and bearing Neutral Citation No. 2026:HHC:37603, decided on 03.09.2026, considered a petition seeking regular bail in a case involving allegations of sexual assault on the alleged promise of marriage.

The Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that, where both the accused and the victim/prosecutrix were already married to other persons and were aware of each other’s marital status, there was, prima facie, no question of a promise to marry, particularly when neither had obtained a divorce from their respective spouses.

The Court observed:

“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.”

The case concerned Vinod Kumar, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old woman on the alleged promise of marriage. The FIR was registered on 22 June 2026 under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Women Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

At the outset, the Court recorded in paragraph 1:

“Bail petitioner, namely Vinod Kumar, who is behind the bars since 17.08.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.12 of 2026, dated 22.06.2026, under Sections 64, 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Women Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.”

The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

In paragraph 2, the Court noted that, pursuant to its directions, the State had filed a status report and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bilaspur, was present with the record. The victim/prosecutrix was also present and stated that she did not intend to engage a lawyer and wished to adopt the arguments advanced by the Additional Advocate General.

The Court, in paragraph 3, considered the allegations contained in the complaint. The victim/prosecutrix, aged 31 years, alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage.

According to the complaint, her marriage with Manoj Kumar had taken place in 2017. Subsequently, due to matrimonial discord, she was living separately from her husband. She alleged that in 2022 she came into contact with the petitioner, who was an astrologer by profession.

She alleged that the petitioner, taking advantage of her circumstances, persuaded her to obtain a divorce from her husband on the ground that, according to her horoscope, she would not have a good family life with Manoj Kumar. She further alleged that the petitioner told her that he was also not having good relations with his wife and that, after her divorce, he would marry her.

The complainant alleged that, on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner continued to maintain physical relations with her against her wishes. She further alleged that, when she came to know about his alleged relations with several other women and objected to the same, she was allegedly beaten by the petitioner.

On these allegations, the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

In paragraph 4, the Court noted that the petitioner had initially approached the High Court by way of Cr.MP (M) No. 1502 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn, following which the petitioner was arrested and had remained in custody since 17 August 2026.

Since the investigation had been completed and nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner, his counsel sought regular bail.

High Court’s Findings on the Alleged Promise of Marriage

The Court considered the material available on record, including the statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

In paragraph 7, the Court observed that the victim/prosecutrix was already married to Manoj Kumar and had subsequently experienced matrimonial discord. On considering her statement in its entirety, the Court found that she had, prima facie, joined the company of the petitioner voluntarily and without external pressure.

The Court noted that the victim/prosecutrix had herself approached the petitioner to show him her horoscope and that the petitioner had allegedly persuaded her to obtain a divorce from her husband. It further noted that she had been meeting the petitioner since 2022 and that, according to her allegations, the petitioner had maintained physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage.

The Court also took note of the fact that no complaint had been lodged during this period and that the FIR was registered for the first time on 22 June 2026.

The Court consequently observed that, at the stage of consideration of bail, it was not persuaded to accept the State’s contention that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim/prosecutrix against her wishes.

In paragraph 8, the Court specifically considered the issue of the alleged promise of marriage and observed:

“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.”

The Court further noted that the complaint itself suggested that the petitioner had allegedly promised to marry the victim/prosecutrix subject to her obtaining a divorce.

In view of these circumstances, the Court held that, prima facie, no case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was made out against the petitioner at the stage of consideration of bail.

It is pertinent to note that this was a finding for the purpose of deciding the bail application and not a final adjudication of the allegations. The Court subsequently clarified that its observations would remain confined to disposal of the bail petition and would not affect the merits of the case before the trial Court.

Allegation of Caste-Based Remarks

The State also opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly caused injury to the victim/prosecutrix and made casteist remarks.

In paragraph 9, the Court examined the initial statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that there was no allegation concerning casteist remarks in that statement. According to the Court, such an allegation was made for the first time in the statement subsequently recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The Court clarified that this aspect would ultimately have to be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence collected and led by the prosecution.

In paragraph 10, the Court observed that, considering the other circumstances of the case and the fact that the guilt of the petitioner was yet to be established, there was no reason to keep him incarcerated for an indefinite period during the trial.

Previous Criminal Cases and Presumption of Innocence

In paragraph 11, the Court considered the petitioner’s previous criminal cases. The status report referred to more than 23 cases registered against him under the IPC.

However, after examining the material placed before it by the petitioner, the Court noted that the majority of the cases had been registered under the Excise Act and that the petitioner had already been acquitted in 21 of the 23 cases referred to.

The Court also took note of the Investigating Officer’s statement that nine criminal cases were pending. However, after examining the information supplied by the MHC, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, the Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that he had already been acquitted in 21 cases.

In paragraph 12, the Court reiterated the settled principle that an accused is presumed innocent until guilt is established in accordance with law.

The Court observed that, in the present case, the guilt of the accused was yet to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. It therefore considered that continued incarceration for an indefinite period would have to be examined in the context of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The State’s apprehension that the petitioner might flee from justice was considered capable of being addressed by imposing appropriate conditions upon the petitioner.

Supreme Court Principles Governing Grant of Bail

Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

In paragraph 13, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2018, decided on 6 February 2018.

The Supreme Court held that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period, particularly when guilt has yet to be established. The principle that an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty was also reiterated.

Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation

In paragraph 14, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49.

The Supreme Court held that the gravity of the alleged offence, by itself, cannot be treated as the sole basis for denying bail. Competing factors are required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its discretion.

The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial by imposing reasonable conditions. Bail is neither punitive nor preventive in its object.

Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI

In paragraph 15, the Court referred to Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218.

The Supreme Court has held that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The Court is required to consider whether it is probable that the accused will appear to face the trial.

The Court must also take into account factors such as the nature of the allegations, the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment that conviction may entail, the character of the accused and the circumstances peculiar to the case.

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee

In paragraph 16, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496.

The Supreme Court has laid down various considerations relevant to the determination of a bail application, including whether a prima facie case exists, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of repetition of the offence and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses.

Grant of Bail and Conditions

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly, in paragraph 17, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000 with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court.

The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required, and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. If prevented by any reason from doing so, he shall seek exemption from appearance by filing an appropriate application.

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer.

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

In paragraph 18, the Court clarified that if the petitioner misused the liberty granted to him or violated any of the conditions imposed, the investigating agency would be at liberty to approach the High Court for cancellation of bail.

The Court further clarified in paragraph 19:

“Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone.”

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Finally, in paragraph 20, the Court permitted the petitioner to produce a copy of the order downloaded from the High Court website. The trial Court was directed not to insist upon a certified copy of the order, though it could verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while considering the petition for regular bail, held that, on the material available at that stage, there was prima facie no question of a promise to marry where both the petitioner and the victim/prosecutrix were already married and were aware of each other’s marital status, particularly when neither had obtained a divorce from their respective spouses.

The Court also considered the circumstances surrounding the alleged relationship, the period during which the parties had been meeting, the delay in lodging the complaint, the petitioner’s previous criminal cases and the principles governing personal liberty and grant of bail.

The Court consequently granted regular bail subject to specified conditions. At the same time, the Court expressly clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the disposal of the bail application and should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.

The decision therefore primarily deals with the question of **whether continued custody of the petitioner was justified at the stage of bail**, and the observations concerning the alleged promise of marriage and Section 69 of the BNS have to be understood in that limited procedural context.