Victim & Accused Didn’t Take Divorce From Their Respective Spouses: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Section 69 BNS Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered under the provisions of the BNS and IPC.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man in a false promise to marry case after noting that once the victim/prosecutrix as well as the accused had not obtained divorce from their respective spouses, they otherwise could not have solemnised the marriage.
The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 64 and 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.
The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held, “Besides above, this Court finds that 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. Complaint itself suggests that petitioner had promised to marry subject to taking of divorce by the victim/prosecutrix. In view of the above, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that prima-facie no case muchless under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the petitioner.”
Advocate Imran Khan represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The victim/prosecutrix, aged 31 years, lodged a complaint alleging therein that the bail-petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage. She alleged that her marriage was solemnised with a man in the year 2017, but subsequently, on account of matrimonial discord, she was compelled to live separately. She alleged that in 2022, she came in contact with the bail-petitioner, who is an astrologer by profession.
The victim alleged that the petitioner, taking advantage of her innocence and adverse circumstances, persuaded her to take divorce from her husband on the ground that, as per her horoscope, she had no chances of having a good family life. The complainant further alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the bail petitioner kept on sexually assaulting her against her wishes. It was further alleged that when it came to her notice that the bail petitioner had illicit relations with several other women, she objected to the same and she was given merciless beatings by the bail petitioner. It was in such circumstances that the FIR came to be registered.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the victim/prosecutrix, aged 31 years, prior to her having lodged the FIR, was married to a man, with whom she subsequently had some matrimonial discord. “If the statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is perused in its entirety, it can be safely concluded that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure joined the company of the bail petitioner and as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that bail petitioner took undue advantage of innocence and plight of the victim/prosecutrix”, it stated.
The Bench further noticed that the FIR came to be lodged for the first time only on June 22, 2026 and during the aforesaid period, the victim/prosecutrix, of her own volition and without external pressure, had been living with the bail petitioner.
The Bench further took note of the fact that the guilt, if any, of the accused was to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record and his incarceration in jail for an indefinite period was a clear-cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench thus allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 2 lakh with two local sureties.
Cause Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:37603)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Imran Khan
Respondent: Additional Advocates General Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Deputy Advocates General Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu