SC Stays Bail to Unnao Rape Convict Kuldeep Sengar

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi high court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, saying substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require its consideration.

A three-judge vacation bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily when a convict or an under-trial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the high court, such order shall not be stayed by it without hearing such person.

The apex court noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.

The apex court, which was hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the high court order, also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response within four weeks on the CBI’s plea.

In its order, the top court said, “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order.”

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the high court order, saying it was a “horrific rape” of a minor child.

“This is an occasion where I would really urge your lordships’ conscience to stay this order. We are answerable to the child who was 15 years and 10 months old,” Mr Mehta said.

He also referred to the aspect of “public servant” and said Sengar was then a very powerful MLA of the area at the relevant time.

After the top court order, the Unnao rape case survivor expressed satisfaction over it and expressed her full faith in the justice system.

“I am very happy with this decision. I have got justice from the Supreme Court. I have been raising my voice for justice from the very beginning,” the survivor told mediapersons.

“I do not make any allegations against any court. I have faith in all courts, but the Supreme Court has given me justice and will continue to do so,” she said.

In its December 23 order, the Delhi high court had said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5(C) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

“Is it your argument that the concept of being a ‘public servant’ is completely alien and irrelevant when the victim is a minor?” the CJI asked.

Responding in the affirmative, Mr Mehta said “public servant” is not defined in the Pocso Act.

He also referred to Section 42A of the Pocso Act, which says that provisions of this law shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of Pocso shall have overriding effect.

Senior advocate N. Hariharan, along with other lawyers appearing for Sengar, opposed the CBI’s plea seeking a stay on the high court order.

The top court said, “We are only saying that the matter requires consideration.”

It added that arguments advanced by Sengar’s lawyers also have weight and require in-depth consideration.

The apex court observed it was only worried that a constable or a “patwari” will be a “public servant” for the purpose of committing such an offence, but a member of Parliament or an elected member of a state Legislative Assembly may be exempted if this interpretation was construed to be correct.

It said: “Very frankly, these judges are one of the finest we have… There is very in-depth analytical analysis made... But at the same time, we are all prone to commit errors.”

The top court said the victim has a statutory right to file a separate special leave petition against the high court order.

Mr Hariharan raised the issue of high court judges being targeted for the order, saying that people should refrain from making statements or allegations against the judges. “They are doing that on national television,” he said.

The top court said: “We understand it. We are not sitting in ivory towers. We understand that people are trying to take political advantage, and there are people who are trying to take advantage.”

Mr Hariharan said there is a video circulating which is levelling allegations against the judges who had passed the order, and this was a cause of concern.

The top court observed that such people are simply forgetting that Sengar was convicted by the judiciary only.

Mr Mehta said both the high court judges are “brilliant with unimpeachable integrity”, and any attempt to malign them must be strongly condemned.

He said there are always some elements that attempt to browbeat honest judges, and such devious forces must not be encouraged.

The high court had suspended the jail term of Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case, till the pendency of his appeal, saying he had already served seven years and five months in prison.

The high court order has sparked criticism from a section, and there have been protests by the victim, her family and activists. The order had triggered nationwide outrage and renewed debate on crimes against women and political accountability.

Sengar had challenged a December 2019 trial court verdict in the case. He had, however, remained in jail since he was also serving 10 years’ imprisonment in the custodial death case of the victim’s father and has not been granted bail in that case.

The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the apex court on August 1, 2019.

Sengar’s appeal against his conviction in the case of the custodial death of the survivor’s father is also pending, in which he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial time in jail.

In its plea, the CBI referred to its top court verdict in the L.K. Advani case in which it held that anyone who holds public office, like MPs or MLAs, would be deemed a “public servant”.

The CBI contended that the high court erred by declaring that Sengar, an MLA when the offence was committed, was not a “public servant” to be prosecuted under Pocso and granted him bail.