Unnao Rape | Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order Suspending Kuldeep Sengar's Sentence, Remits Matter For Fresh Decision

To recap, the High Court, while granting bail to Sengar, held that aggravated offence provisions under Section 5(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code were not attracted in the case, as he could not be categorized as a “public servant” within the meaning of those provisions. On that basis, it proceeded to suspend the sentence.

Challenging this decision, the CBI contends that the High Court's decision had the effect of diluting the protective framework of the POCSO Act, and was legally unsustainable given the gravity of the offence and the settled principles governing suspension of life sentences.

The investigating agency took strong exception to the High Court's conclusion that an MLA does not fall within the definition of a “public servant” for the purposes of Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act. According to the CBI, such a narrow and technical interpretation defeats the object of the statute, which is to provide enhanced protection to children against sexual offences and to treat abuse of authority as an aggravating circumstance.

The plea argues that the High Court failed to adopt a purposive interpretation of the POCSO Act, despite the case involving sexual assault of a minor. It said that POCSO is a special welfare legislation and its provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances, rather than restricts, the safeguards intended by Parliament.

Assailing the reasoning for suspension of sentence, the CBI submits that long incarceration by itself cannot be a ground to suspend a life sentence in cases involving heinous crimes such as rape of a minor. The agency points out that the Supreme Court has consistently held that suspension of sentence in cases punishable with life imprisonment is an exception and not the rule, and can be granted only in rare and compelling circumstances.

The petition cites several Supreme Court precedents to underline that factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the role of the accused, and the potential threat to the victim and witnesses must weigh heavily against grant of suspension. It alleged that the High Court's order failed to adequately consider these aspects.

The CBI also flags concerns about the safety of the victim, arguing that Sengar's release poses a real risk given his past conduct and the influence he wields. It warned that suspending the sentence of a powerful convict in such circumstances undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and sends a troubling message in cases of sexual violence against children.

Sengar was convicted in 2019 by a special CBI court for raping a minor girl in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The case had drawn nationwide attention, with the survivor and her family alleging sustained harassment and intimidation by the former legislator and his associates. Several related cases, including those involving attacks on the survivor's family members, were also investigated by the CBI on the directions of the apex court.

He is also serving a 10 year sentence imposed on him in 2020 in a separate case related to the culpable homicide of the survivor's father. In January this year, the High Court rejected his second plea for suspension of sentence in that case, noting his criminal antecedents and that there was no new subsequent development in the case.

The Supreme Court in February requested the Delhi High Court to afford "out-of-turn" hearing to Sengar's appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in the case related to the custodial death of the victim's father.

Case Title:

(1) CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, SLP(Crl) 21367/2025

(2) Anjale Patel and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., Diary No. 75128-2025