The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to an astrologer accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old woman on the alleged pretext of marriage, observing at the prima facie stage that both of them were already married and knew about each other's marital status.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, while allowing Vinod Kumar's bail plea, observed that neither the petitioner nor the prosecutrix had obtained divorce from their respective spouses and, therefore, they could not have solemnised a marriage with each other. The Court consequently found, for the limited purpose of deciding bail, that a prima facie case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not made out.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 12 of 2026, registered on June 22 at Women Police Station, Bilaspur. The FIR invoked Sections 64 and 69 of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the complaint, the woman married in 2017 but later began living separately from her husband following matrimonial discord. She alleged that she came into contact with Kumar, an astrologer, in 2022.
The woman alleged that Kumar advised her to divorce her husband after examining her horoscope and told her that he too had strained relations with his wife. According to her allegations, he said he would marry her after she obtained a divorce.
She further alleged that Kumar established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. After she allegedly learnt about his relationships with other women and objected, she claimed that he assaulted her.
Kumar was arrested on August 17, 2026. By the time his regular bail application was considered, the investigation had been completed and nothing remained to be recovered from him.
Court's Observations
After examining the material, including the woman's statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court was not persuaded at the bail stage by the State's contention that Kumar had taken advantage of her circumstances.
The Court noted that the woman had been meeting Kumar since 2022 and that the FIR was lodged for the first time in 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."
On the alleged promise of marriage, the Court placed significance on the existing marriages of both parties.
"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 accordingly observed that, prima facie, an offence under Section 69 BNS was not made out against the petitioner.
The State also relied upon the petitioner's criminal antecedents and submitted that 23 cases had previously been registered against him. The Court, however, noted material indicating that he had already been acquitted in 21 of those cases, with a majority relating to the Excise Act.
The Court further considered the allegation concerning casteist remarks, noting that such an allegation did not appear in the woman's initial statement and was made later in her statement under Section 183 BNSS. It clarified that this issue would ultimately have to be examined by the trial court on the evidence.
Bail Granted With Conditions
Holding that Kumar had made out a case for bail, the High Court ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount.
He was directed to attend the trial, remain available for interrogation when required, refrain from tampering with evidence or threatening or inducing persons acquainted with the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
The High Court expressly clarified that its observations would not amount to a finding on the merits of the criminal case and were confined only to deciding the bail application.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr. MP(M) No. 1590 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Decision Date: September 3, 2026
