Supreme Court Stays Bail Granted To Fromer MLA Kuldeep Sengar In Unnao Rape Case
The survivor and her family have sought additional security and expressed distress over Delhi HC's earlier decision.
advertisement
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Delhi High Court’s order dated 23 December 2025, which had suspended the life sentence and granted bail to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The stay was issued by a vacation bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice Augustine George Masih. Sengar will not be released from custody as a result of this stay, and the matter will be further examined in the coming weeks.
According to Bar and Bench, the Supreme Court heard arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and senior advocates for Sengar. The bench found that substantial questions of law had arisen, particularly regarding the interpretation of “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court directed that a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks and clarified that Sengar shall not be released pursuant to the High Court’s order.
As reported by Live Law, the CBI challenged the High Court’s finding that Sengar, as an MLA, could not be treated as a public servant for the purposes of aggravated offences under the POCSO Act. The Solicitor General argued that the POCSO Act’s aggravated offence provisions are intended to cover individuals in positions of dominance over minors, and that Sengar’s status as a powerful MLA at the time of the offence should qualify as such dominance. The Supreme Court bench noted that the legal issue concerning the definition of “public servant” and its relevance under the POCSO framework requires further determination.
The report highlighted that the Supreme Court expressed concern that accepting the High Court’s interpretation would mean that a police constable could be considered a public servant under the Act, but an MLA would not. The CBI’s appeal also emphasised that releasing Sengar on bail could jeopardise the safety of the survivor and her family, and undermine public confidence in the justice system. The survivor and her family have sought additional security and expressed distress over the High Court’s earlier decision.
The article added that the Supreme Court’s order was based on the “peculiar facts” of the case, including Sengar’s conviction in a separate offence for which he remains in custody. The bench stated, “We are conscious of the fact that when a convict or undertrial has been released, such orders are not ordinarily stayed by this court without hearing such persons. But in view of peculiar facts where convict is convicted for a separate offence, we stay operation of Delhi High Court order dated December 23, 2025.”
“We find that there are substantial questions of law. Issue notice. Ordinarily, when a convict/undertrial has been released on bail pursuant to TC/HC order, such order should not be stayed by this court without hearing such person. However, respondent is convicted and sentenced in another case under Section 304 Part 2 IPC and is in custody in that case. We stay operation of impugned order in peculiar facts. Respondent shall not be released from custody pursuant to the impugned order.”
The Supreme Court’s decision means that Sengar’s bail, granted by the Delhi High Court, is suspended and he will remain in jail. The news report said that Sengar was already serving a 10-year sentence for culpable homicide in connection with the death of the survivor’s father, which prevented his release even after the High Court’s bail order.
Mentioned in the report, the Supreme Court also raised concerns about the broader implications of the High Court’s interpretation, warning that it could inadvertently provide immunity to lawmakers from aggravated charges under the POCSO Act. The bench observed that the legal issue requires careful consideration and that the case will proceed with further submissions from all parties.
As the report noted, the Supreme Court has granted four weeks for the filing of counter affidavits and has issued notice to Sengar. The survivor retains the right to file a separate special leave petition, and the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee will provide free legal aid if required.
“Victim has a statutory right to file separate SLP. She does not require liberty from this Court. If she requires free legal aid, SC Legal Service Committee shall provide free legal aid. She may file her appeal through her own counsel also.”
The Supreme Court’s stay will remain in effect until further orders, and the case is expected to be taken up again after the completion of the required filings and responses. The article mentioned that the bench’s decision was guided by the need to address substantial legal questions and to ensure that the interests of justice and the safety of the survivor are protected during the pendency of the appeal.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.