The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the sentence of former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. The agency has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), arguing that the High Court erred in granting bail during the pendency of Sengar’s appeal against conviction.
Sengar was convicted in 2019 for raping a minor girl and received a life sentence from a special CBI court. The case drew nationwide attention due to allegations of intimidation, violence, and abuse of power involving the survivor and her family.
High Court Suspends Sentence, Grants Bail
Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence and granted him bail. The court held that the aggravated offence provisions under Section 5(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code did not apply to Sengar.
The court reasoned that Sengar could not be treated as a “public servant” under these provisions, despite holding the position of a Member of the Legislative Assembly at the time of the offence. Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that enhanced punishment clauses were not attracted.
CBI Questions Interpretation Of ‘Public Servant’
The CBI has strongly opposed the High Court’s reasoning, calling it legally flawed and contrary to the intent of the POCSO Act. In its petition, the agency argued that an elected MLA exercises authority and influence that squarely falls within the scope of abuse of power contemplated under Section 5(c).
The agency stated that adopting a narrow definition of “public servant” defeats the purpose of a welfare statute meant to protect children from sexual exploitation. According to the CBI, the High Court failed to apply a purposive interpretation of the law.
“POCSO is a special legislation designed to offer enhanced protection to children. Courts must interpret it in a way that strengthens safeguards rather than weakens them,” the petition stated.
Bail In Life Sentence Cases Must Remain An Exception
The CBI also challenged the suspension of Sengar’s life sentence, stressing that long incarceration cannot justify bail in cases involving heinous crimes. The agency cited multiple Supreme Court judgments that establish suspension of sentence as an exception in life imprisonment cases.
According to the CBI, courts must consider the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it occurred, the influence wielded by the accused, and the potential threat to the victim and witnesses before granting such relief.
The agency argued that the High Court overlooked these crucial factors while suspending Sengar’s sentence.
Concerns Over Survivor’s Safety
The petition raised serious concerns about the survivor’s safety following Sengar’s release. The CBI highlighted Sengar’s past conduct and the influence he continues to wield, warning that his freedom poses a real risk to the survivor and her family.
The agency reminded the court that the survivor and her relatives faced sustained harassment and violent attacks after the crime came to light. These incidents prompted the Supreme Court to transfer the case from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi and hand over the investigation to the CBI.
Granting bail in such circumstances, the agency said, undermines faith in the justice system and discourages victims of sexual violence from coming forward.
Impact On Public Confidence In Justice System
The CBI further argued that suspending the sentence of a powerful convict sends a troubling message in cases involving sexual crimes against minors. The agency said such decisions weaken the deterrent effect of stringent laws and erode public trust in the judiciary.
“Granting bail to a life convict in a case of this gravity shakes public confidence and dilutes the seriousness with which crimes against children must be treated,” the petition stated.
Background Of The Unnao Rape Case
Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted in 2019 for raping a minor girl in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. The case gained national prominence after the survivor alleged repeated threats and intimidation by Sengar and his associates.
Following these allegations, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI probe and transferred the trial to Delhi to ensure a fair process. Several related cases, including attacks on the survivor’s family members, were also investigated under the apex court’s supervision.
In a separate case, a court sentenced Sengar to 10 years’ imprisonment in 2020 for the culpable homicide of the survivor’s father, who died after an alleged assault linked to the case.
Supreme Court To Decide Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court will now examine whether the Delhi High Court correctly interpreted the POCSO Act and whether it followed established principles governing suspension of life sentences.
Legal experts say the outcome could have wider implications for how courts interpret the definition of “public servant” and apply sentencing standards in cases involving sexual offences against minors.
The case is expected to come up for hearing in the coming days, with significant attention on how the apex court balances legal interpretation, victim protection, and public interes
