Can a Married Woman Claim Sexual Intercourse Was Induced by a False Promise of Marriage? Himachal Pradesh High Court Examines Section 69 BNS
A promise of marriage can have serious consequences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 69 specifically creates an offence where sexual intercourse is obtained through deceitful means or through a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling that promise.
But what happens when the woman making the allegation is herself already married—and she knows that the man she accuses is also married?
That question recently came before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where the Court granted regular bail to an astrologer accused of having sexual relations with a married woman allegedly on the promise that he would marry her.
The Court’s reasoning raises an important question about the very foundation of a prosecution under Section 69 BNS: Was there really a legally actionable promise of marriage capable of inducing consent when both parties knew that their existing marriages had not been dissolved?
The answer, at least at the bail stage on the facts before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, was that a prima facie case under Section 69 was not established.
The Himachal Pradesh Case: What Happened?
The case was Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. MP(M) No. 1590 of 2026, decided by Justice Sandeep Sharma on 3 September 2026.
The accused, Vinod Kumar, was an astrologer. He had been in custody since 17 August 2026 after an FIR was registered at the Women Police Station, Bilaspur, on 22 June 2026.
The FIR invoked:
- Section 64 BNS;
- Section 69 BNS;
- Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The complainant was a married woman who had married her husband in 2017. According to the prosecution case, matrimonial disputes subsequently arose between them and she began living separately.
She came into contact with the accused, an astrologer, in 2022.
According to her allegations, the accused examined her horoscope and told her that she would not have a happy family life with her husband. She alleged that he persuaded her to seek divorce.
She further alleged that the accused himself told her that his relationship with his wife was troubled and that, after she obtained a divorce, he would marry her.
Physical relations allegedly followed.
The complaint subsequently alleged that she discovered that the accused was maintaining relationships with other women and that disputes arose between them.
The Central Difficulty: Both Were Already Married
This became the most important aspect of the bail proceedings.
The High Court noted that both the complainant and the accused were married to other persons and neither had obtained a divorce.
In other words, this was not a case where an unmarried woman was allegedly induced into a sexual relationship by an unmarried man who secretly had no intention of marrying her.
Both parties knew their respective matrimonial positions.
The Court therefore reasoned that, in the circumstances placed before it, there was prima facie a fundamental difficulty in describing the alleged assurance as a straightforward promise of marriage.
If neither party had obtained a divorce, the alleged marriage between them could not immediately be solemnised in accordance with law.
The Court therefore observed that, prima facie, “no question of promise to marry”, particularly because the marital status of both parties was known to both.
That observation is important—but it must not be misunderstood.
The Court was deciding bail, not conducting a trial.
Section 69 BNS: What Exactly Does the Law Punish?
Section 69 BNS provides punishment for sexual intercourse obtained through:
- deceitful means, or
- a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling that promise,
where the sexual intercourse does not amount to rape.
The maximum punishment is imprisonment extending to 10 years and fine.
The provision is therefore not designed to punish every relationship that eventually fails.
Its focus is deception and fraudulent inducement.
That distinction has become increasingly important in judicial decisions after the BNS came into force on 1 July 2024.
A failed relationship and a fraudulent relationship are not automatically the same thing.
The Supreme Court’s September 2026 Clarification
The Himachal Pradesh decision becomes even more interesting because of a recent Supreme Court judgment.
In Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, decided on 7 September 2026, the Supreme Court examined Section 69 BNS and reiterated the importance of the accused’s intention at the time the promise was allegedly made.
The Court distinguished between:
- a promise that was fraudulent from the beginning, and
- a genuine promise that subsequently could not be fulfilled because circumstances changed.
The Supreme Court held that a mere subsequent failure to marry does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS. The prosecution must have material indicating that the promise was made without an intention to fulfil it.
This distinction is critical.
Suppose A genuinely intends to marry B when the relationship begins, but circumstances later change and the marriage does not take place.
That situation is legally different from A deciding from the very beginning never to marry B but using the promise merely as a device to obtain sexual relations.
Section 69 is directed at the second situation.
“Deceit, Not Disappointment”
A useful way of understanding the developing jurisprudence is this:
Section 69 BNS punishes deceit; it does not automatically punish disappointment.
The Bombay High Court recently articulated this distinction while examining Section 69, observing that the prosecution must examine whether the promise was false from its inception and whether objective material supports the allegation.
This approach is consistent with the broader principle that criminal liability cannot arise merely because an intimate relationship eventually breaks down.
The decisive issue is the quality and timing of the alleged deception.
Why the Woman’s Existing Marriage Became Important
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s reasoning cannot be separated from the particular facts.
- The complainant was already married.
- The accused was also married.
- Both knew it.
- Neither had obtained a divorce.
- The allegation itself suggested that the accused would marry her after she obtained a divorce.
Consequently, the alleged promise was not presented as an immediate marriage between two unmarried persons.
It was conditional upon changes in their existing matrimonial relationships.
The High Court considered this circumstance while determining whether Section 69 was prima facie attracted.
That does not mean that a married woman can never be a victim of sexual deception.
That would be far too broad a proposition.
The legally relevant question remains whether the alleged sexual relationship was actually induced by deceitful means or a promise of marriage made without the intention to fulfil it.
A Significant Kerala High Court Development
The legal debate has moved further in September 2026.
In Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr., Crl.M.C. No. 4354 of 2026, decided on 3 September 2026, the Kerala High Court considered a case involving a married woman who alleged that a man had sexually assaulted her after making a promise of marriage.
The woman had a subsisting marriage and two children.
The Kerala High Court examined whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, established that her consent had been induced by the alleged promise.
The Court concluded that the ingredients of Section 69 BNS were not made out on the facts before it and quashed the FIR under Section 528 BNSS.
The case is significant because the Court specifically considered the fact that the complainant’s marriage was continuing.
However, the Kerala decision also arose in a somewhat different procedural context from the Himachal Pradesh case: it concerned a petition for quashing proceedings, whereas the Himachal Pradesh Court was dealing with regular bail.
That distinction matters.
Another Kerala High Court Decision: A Married Man and an Alleged Promise of Marriage
Earlier in 2026, the Kerala High Court had also examined a case in which the accused himself was already married.
In Akhil N.R. v. State of Kerala, decided on 12 June 2026, the Court considered whether a complainant who knew that the accused was already married could nevertheless establish a prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS.
The Court found the circumstances relevant while examining whether the alleged promise could amount to deceitful means. It also considered the delay in making the allegation and surrounding litigation. The Court ultimately granted relief at the anticipatory-bail stage, while making clear that its observations were tentative and limited to the bail proceedings.
Thus, the 2026 decisions are beginning to reveal a recurring judicial theme:
The existence of a promise to marry is not enough. The prosecution must establish the statutory connection between the alleged deception, the promise and the sexual relationship.
What About Section 64 BNS?
The Himachal Pradesh FIR also invoked Section 64 BNS, which concerns rape.
This is legally important because Section 69 itself expressly applies to sexual intercourse that does not amount to rape.
Therefore, an allegation under Section 64 and an allegation under Section 69 should not simply be treated as interchangeable.
The ingredients of rape have to be independently examined.
At the bail stage, the High Court was not determining whether the accused had committed rape or whether the complainant’s allegations were ultimately true.
It was assessing whether continued custody was justified and whether the material disclosed a prima facie case warranting the alleged offences.
What About the Delay in Filing the Complaint?
Another factor considered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court was the long period between the beginning of the alleged relationship and the registration of the FIR.
According to the material before the Court, the parties had been meeting since 2022, whereas the FIR was registered only on 22 June 2026.
The Court noted that no complaint had been made during the intervening period.
This was one of the circumstances considered while deciding bail.
But delay must be handled carefully.
Delay in reporting a sexual offence does not automatically make an allegation false.
There may be many reasons why a person does not immediately approach the police.
The legal significance of delay depends upon the surrounding facts and evidence.
Therefore, the Himachal Pradesh decision should not be read as creating a rule that delayed complaints under Section 69 are inherently unreliable.
The Previous Criminal Cases Against the Accused
The prosecution also relied upon the accused’s criminal antecedents.
The record reportedly contained more than 23 criminal cases against him.
But the High Court examined the actual status of those cases and noted that the accused had already been acquitted in 21 cases, many of which related to the Excise Act.
This illustrates another important principle in bail jurisprudence:
The mere existence of previous FIRs or criminal cases is not equivalent to proof of guilt.
Each case has to be examined according to its procedural and evidentiary status.
The Court also referred to the constitutional importance of personal liberty under Article 21.
Pre-trial detention cannot become punishment before conviction.
Bail Does Not Mean Acquittal
This is perhaps the most important caution when reading the judgment.
The High Court granted regular bail.
It did not declare that the complainant had fabricated the allegations.
It did not conduct a full trial.
It did not finally determine whether the accused was innocent.
The observations were confined to the consideration of the bail application.
The accused was therefore directed to comply with conditions including:
- furnishing a personal bond of ₹2 lakh;
- producing two local sureties of the same amount;
- appearing before the trial court;
- not tampering with evidence;
- not influencing witnesses; and
- not leaving India without prior permission of the Court.
The final determination of guilt or innocence remains a matter for the trial process.
Does Being Married Prevent a Woman from Invoking Section 69 BNS?
No blanket rule can be drawn from this judgment.
The correct legal approach is more nuanced.
A woman’s existing marriage does not automatically eliminate the possibility of deception.
But where the alleged promise of marriage is relied upon as the very basis for Section 69, the court can examine whether that promise was capable of inducing consent in the circumstances alleged.
If:
- the woman knew the man was married;
- the man knew the woman was married;
- neither had obtained divorce;
- the alleged marriage was conditional upon future divorce;
- the relationship continued for a substantial period; and
- there is no material showing that the promise was fraudulent from its inception,
those circumstances may become highly relevant to whether Section 69 is prima facie established.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered those circumstances sufficient, at the bail stage, to conclude that Section 69 was not prima facie made out.
The Legal Test Is Not Simply “Promise or No Promise”
The emerging jurisprudence suggests that courts are likely to ask several deeper questions.
1. Was There Actually a Promise to Marry?
A casual expression of affection or desire to marry may not necessarily constitute the kind of promise contemplated by Section 69.
2. Was the Promise False When It Was Made?
This is perhaps the most important question after the Supreme Court’s September 2026 decision.
3. Did the Accused Intend to Marry at That Time?
Later refusal is not automatically proof of an earlier fraudulent intention.
4. Did the Promise Actually Induce the Sexual Relationship?
There must be a meaningful connection between the alleged deception and the consent.
5. Did the Complainant Know the Accused Was Already Married?
This can become particularly significant where the alleged promise itself depends upon a future divorce.
6. What Do the Surrounding Circumstances Show?
Messages, communications, conduct, length of relationship, attempts to marry, family involvement and other objective evidence may become relevant.
7. Is the Allegation One of Rape or Section 69?
The two offences have different statutory ingredients and should not be conflated.
Section 69 BNS: Key Legal Provisions
| Provision | What It Deals With | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Section 64 BNS | Rape | Invoked in the Himachal Pradesh FIR; final determination requires examination of the evidence |
| Section 69 BNS | Sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil it | Central provision considered by the High Court |
| Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act | Intentional insult/intimidation of an SC/ST member with intent to humiliate in public view | Invoked in the FIR |
| Section 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act | Abuse by caste name in public view | Invoked in the FIR |
| Section 483 BNSS | High Court/Sessions Court bail jurisdiction | Basis for seeking regular bail in the Himachal Pradesh matter |
| Section 183 BNSS | Recording of confessions/statements by Magistrate | Relevant to statements considered during investigation |
| Section 528 BNSS | Inherent powers of High Court | Used by Kerala High Court in Habibur Rahman to quash proceedings |
| Article 21 Constitution | Life and personal liberty | Relevant to pre-trial detention and bail |
A Broader Legal Principle Is Emerging
The post-BNS jurisprudence appears to be drawing an important line between fraudulent sexual inducement and the collapse of a relationship.
The Supreme Court’s September 2026 ruling in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani reinforces the importance of the accused’s intention at the beginning of the relationship.
The Kerala High Court’s September 2026 decision in Habibur Rahman demonstrates how a complainant’s subsisting marriage can become relevant to determining whether consent was actually induced by an alleged promise of marriage.
And the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Vinod Kumar goes a step further on its particular facts by considering the mutual knowledge that both parties were already married and neither had obtained a divorce.
These decisions do not create a universal rule that married women cannot complain of sexual deception.
Instead, they reinforce a more fundamental criminal-law principle:
The prosecution must establish the ingredients of the offence created by Parliament. A failed relationship, by itself, does not automatically become a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS.
Conclusion: The Real Question Is Deception
The most important lesson from the Himachal Pradesh case is not simply that the complainant was married.
The deeper issue is whether the alleged promise of marriage could, on the facts presented, constitute the kind of deceitful inducement contemplated by Section 69 BNS.
Where two adults are already married, both know each other’s marital status, neither has obtained divorce, and the alleged marriage is itself conditional upon future divorce, the court may closely examine whether the alleged promise actually induced the sexual relationship and whether it was fraudulent from the beginning.
At the same time, the fact that a complainant is married should not be treated as an automatic defence to every allegation of sexual exploitation or deception. Each case must turn upon its evidence and statutory ingredients.
The Supreme Court’s latest September 2026 ruling provides an important additional benchmark: the crucial distinction is between a promise made without an intention to fulfil it and a promise that was genuinely made but later could not be fulfilled.
As Section 69 BNS continues to generate litigation, the courts are likely to refine this distinction further.
For lawyers, investigators and litigants, the central question therefore remains:
Was there a promise, was it deceptive from the beginning, and did that deception actually induce the sexual relationship?
That is ultimately the evidentiary bridge that a prosecution under Section 69 BNS must cross.
Case at a Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh |
| Case No. | Cr. MP(M) No. 1590 of 2026 |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla |
| Judge | Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Decision | 3 September 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026: HHC:37603 |
| FIR Date | 22 June 2026 |
| Police Station | Women Police Station, Bilaspur |
| Principal Provisions | Sections 64 & 69 BNS; Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act |
| Result | Regular bail granted |
| Bail Bond | ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount |
| Important Qualification | Observations confined to bail and not a final determination on merits |
Latest Related Developments
Latest related development: In September 2026, the Supreme Court in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat reiterated that subsequent failure to marry, without evidence of deceptive intent when the promise was made, does not by itself attract Section 69 BNS.
Another recent development: In Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala, decided on 3 September 2026, the Kerala High Court quashed Section 69 proceedings after finding that the allegations did not establish that a married complainant’s consent was induced by a false promise of marriage.
