Supreme Court stays bail for Kuldeep Sengar in Unnao rape case

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Delhi High Court order that had suspended the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, directing that he should not be released from custody while his appeal remains pending.

A three-judge vacation bench of the highest court of the country, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices JK Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the high court’s decision.

Delhi High Court order under challenge

On December 23, the Delhi High Court had suspended Sengar’s sentence in the rape case, noting that he had already spent seven years and five months in prison. It granted him conditional bail for the duration of his appeal.

Sengar, a four-time MLA from Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao district, was convicted for raping a woman who was a minor at the time of the offence in 2017. Despite the bail order, he continued to remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year sentence in a separate case relating to the custodial death of the survivor’s father, in which he has not been granted bail.

Supreme Court cites ‘peculiar facts’

Staying the high court’s order, the Supreme Court said that although it ordinarily does not halt release orders without hearing the accused, the present case warranted intervention.

“We are conscious of the fact that when a convict or an undertrial has been released, such orders are not ordinarily stayed by this court without hearing such persons. But in view of peculiar facts, where the convict is also convicted for a separate offence, we stay the operation of the Delhi High Court,” the bench said.

The court issued notice to Sengar and directed him to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks.

CBI opposes sentence suspension

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, described the case as “very horrific” and argued that suspending Sengar’s sentence was unjustified.

“We are answerable to the girl,” Mehta told the court, opposing the high court’s view that Sengar had already served the maximum sentence applicable at the time.

Mehta submitted that after amendments to rape laws, the minimum punishment for the offence now stood at 20 years. The bench, however, pointed out that the amended provisions came into force after the offence was committed and could not be applied retrospectively.

The CBI also objected to the high court’s observation that Sengar, who was an MLA when the crime took place, could not be treated as a public servant for the purpose of prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Court warns against social media pressure

During the hearing, the bench took note of submissions that photographs of Delhi High Court judges were being circulated on social media with captions calling on the public to identify them.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the judiciary was not sitting in “ivory towers” and was aware that attempts were being made to derive political mileage from the case. At the same time, the bench cautioned against public pressure on courts.

“The finest judges are prone to errors,” the Chief Justice observed, adding that judicial scrutiny and correction were integral to the legal system.

When the survivor’s counsel alleged that Sengar was raising a public outcry, the Chief Justice responded that the conviction itself had been delivered by the judiciary and warned against attempts to “browbeat” courts.

“Arguments must be made inside the court, not outside,” the bench said.