Unnao Rape Case: CBI Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order Suspending Kuldeep Sengar’s Life Sentence

The appeal assails the High Court’s December 23 order granting Sengar suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of his criminal appeal against conviction.

Sengar was convicted in December 2019 by a trial court for raping a minor girl and for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the trial court observing that there were no mitigating circumstances. It underscored that Sengar, as a public servant in a democratic setup, had betrayed public trust, noting that “a single act of depravity” was sufficient to do so.

The case relates to allegations that the minor survivor was kidnapped and raped by Sengar between June 11 and 20, 2017, and later sold for ₹60,000. She was subsequently recovered at the Maakhi police station in Uttar Pradesh.

While Sengar’s appeal against conviction remains pending, the Delhi High Court granted him suspension of sentence and bail, holding prima facie that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act was not made out against him. A Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that Sengar could not be categorised as a “public servant” under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC. The Bench also held that he did not fall within Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which deals with offences committed by a person in a “position of trust or authority”.

Challenging this reasoning, the CBI has contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in law by adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of the POCSO Act. According to the agency, a sitting MLA occupies a constitutional position imbued with public trust and authority, performs public duties, and wields significant influence over the electorate.

“The High Court failed to consider that a sitting MLA, by virtue of holding a constitutional office, is vested with public trust and authority over the electorate, and that such position carries heightened responsibility arising from duties owed to the State and society,” the CBI has submitted.

The agency has further argued that the POCSO Act is a special, victim-centric legislation requiring a purposive interpretation. It submitted that Section 5(c) is intended to punish sexual exploitation of children by persons who misuse positions of power, authority, or status, and that excluding elected representatives from its ambit defeats the object of the law.

On the issue of suspension of sentence, the CBI has asserted that long incarceration alone cannot justify bail in cases involving life imprisonment for heinous crimes, particularly sexual offences against minors. It relied on settled legal principles that suspension of sentence post-conviction is an exception, not the rule.

The agency has also raised serious concerns about the safety of the survivor and her family, stating that Sengar is an influential individual and that his release during the pendency of the appeal could jeopardise their security and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.

A Special Leave Petition has also been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision suspending the life sentence of former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who is serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case.

The petition filed by Advocates Anjale Patel and Pooja Shilpkar through Advocate-on-Record Sanjeev Malhotra seeks cancellation of bail granted to Kuldeep Senger in relation to Unnao rape case.

The plea questions whether the High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail particularly when the Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, had not only awarded life imprisonment but had also directed that the accused shall undergo incarceration for the remainder of his natural life, thereby reflecting the gravity and heinous nature of the offence.

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)