The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an astrologer accused of obtaining sexual relations through deceitful means, holding that a promise to marry could not prima facie arise when both parties were already married and had not divorced their respective spouses.
Justice Sandeep Sharma passed the order on September 3 while hearing the accused’s regular bail plea. The accused was arrested on August 17 in a case involving allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with caste-based offences.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the 31-year-old woman had married in 2017 but later faced matrimonial difficulties. She came into contact with the accused, an astrologer, in 2022.
The woman alleged that the accused examined her horoscope and advised her to seek a divorce, telling her that she would not have a good family life with her husband.
She further alleged that the accused said his own relationship with his wife was also not good and promised to marry her after she obtained a divorce. She alleged that he subsequently became physically intimate with her on the basis of this assurance.
The woman also alleged that the accused was involved with several other women and assaulted her when she objected.
Court on the Alleged Promise to Marry
The High Court noted that both the accused and the woman were already married, were aware of each other’s marital status and had not divorced their respective spouses.
Against this background, the court found that there was prima facie no question of a promise to marry. It also noted that the complaint itself suggested that the alleged marriage was conditional upon the woman first obtaining a divorce.
The court therefore held that, at the stage of considering bail, the alleged promise did not prima facie constitute the basis for an offence under Section 69 of the BNS.
The court made it clear that these observations were limited to deciding the bail application and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case.
Woman Had Been Meeting the Accused Since 2022
The court also considered the history of the relationship between the parties.
It noted that the woman had been meeting the accused since 2022, while the FIR was registered for the first time on June 22 of the relevant year.
The court further observed that the woman had voluntarily approached the accused to show him her horoscope. On the material available at the bail stage, the court was not persuaded that the accused had taken undue advantage of her circumstances or sexually assaulted her against her wishes.
Caste-Based Allegation Left for Trial
The prosecution had also alleged that the accused made casteist remarks while injuring the woman.
The High Court noted that this allegation was absent from her initial statement to the police and appeared for the first time in a subsequent statement recorded during the investigation.
The court left the issue to be considered by the trial court on the basis of the evidence collected during the proceedings.
Previous Criminal Cases
The prosecution opposed bail by pointing to the accused’s criminal antecedents and stated that more than 23 cases had been registered against him.
After examining the details, the High Court noted that most of these cases were registered under the Excise Act and that the accused had already been acquitted in 21 of the 23 cases.
The investigating officer, however, informed the court that nine criminal cases were pending against the accused.
The High Court observed that the accused’s guilt in the present case had not yet been established and that indefinite incarceration during the trial could not be justified. It said appropriate bail conditions could be imposed to ensure his presence during the proceedings.
Bail Granted With Conditions
The High Court concluded that, prima facie, no case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, concerning sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, was made out against the accused.
He was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount.
The court directed the accused to:
- Remain available for questioning.
- Regularly attend the trial.
- Not tamper with evidence.
- Not hamper the investigation.
- Not threaten or induce anyone connected with the case.
- Not leave the country without the court’s permission.
The observations made by the High Court were limited to the bail proceedings and will not determine the final outcome of the criminal case.
Also Read: Supreme Court Questions FSSAI’s Red-Label Plan for High Sugar, Salt & Fat Foods
