Relationship Based on Known Marital Status Negates Deceitful Promise to Marry: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has underscored that a sexual relationship maintained with the full knowledge of a partner’s existing marriage prima facie negates claims of allurement or deceitful promises of marriage. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of consensual relationships between adults under the new criminal code, emphasizing that awareness of a legal impediment to marriage bars the argument of consent obtained through falsehood.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the matter, deliberated on a regular bail application involving allegations of sexual exploitation under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court scrutinized whether a decade-long relationship could be categorized as one based on a false promise to marry when the informant was admittedly aware that the accused was already married.

Judicial Scrutiny of Consent and Allurement

The Court observed that the informant's own narrative suggested she was aware of the petitioner's marital status yet continued the relationship for ten years. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The allegations in the FIR show that the victim was aware of the fact that the petitioner was married and could not have married her. Thus, the very premises of the FIR that she was allured to marry and the petitioner entered into a sexual relationship with the petitioner based on such allurement is prima facie not acceptable."

Furthermore, the Bench noted the status of the trial, where only one out of twenty-two cited witnesses had been examined, concluding that the trial was not likely to finish soon. Regarding the principles of personal liberty, the Court referred to the standards set in Pinki v. State of U.P. and the foundational rule of 'bail, not jail' established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand.

The Court issued the following directions:
"(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account."

Background

The petitioner sought bail in connection with FIR No. 106 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kihar, Chamba. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner represented himself as unmarried to enter a sexual relationship with the victim. However, the FIR itself mentioned that the petitioner later revealed his marriage but promised to keep the informant as his second wife, a relationship that allegedly continued for ten years.

The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the offences under Sections 69, 351(2), 352, and 238(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and expressed concerns regarding witness intimidation. However, the Court found that the petitioner, a resident of Tarn Taran, Punjab, had roots in society and that the investigation was already concluded with the filing of the charge sheet. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the release of the petitioner on a bail bond of ₹1,00,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1447 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:37622
Case Title: Sohan Singh Versus State of HP
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Rakesh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent(s): Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 7984