Today, On 9th February, Supreme Court has directed the Delhi High Court to hear Kuldeep Sengar’s appeal in the victim’s father’s death case “out of turn” and finish the proceedings within three months, stressing that the long-pending matter must be decided prom
The Supreme Court heard the bail plea of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the custodial death case of the Unnao rape survivor’s father, where his lawyers argued that he has already undergone almost the full 10-year sentence.
A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria, took up Sengar’s petition in which he questioned the January 19 order of the Delhi High Court that had rejected his request for suspension of sentence in the victim’s father’s de
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sengar, told the Bench that the case has reached a stage where his pending appeal may become meaningless.
He submitted,
“My appeal will be rendered infructuous as far as this is concerned. Please see the custody certificate below page 446. My appeal is of 2020. Out of the sentence that is there, I have already undergone 9 years, 7 months. 10 years is the sentence that is imposed on me.”
He added,
“Another 5 months, 6 months, I would have undergone the entire period of sentence. Entire period of 10 years I would have undergone. And the High Court says that this is not a criteria.”
When the court checked the figures, it asked whether the time served was “7 years or 9 years.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave clarified the actual calculation,
“7 years is actual, 6 months, 7 years, 6 months. Then there was added a remission period. Remission is not available on this kind of… Remission is not available. We have to see actual sentence only. It’s listed on…”
Justice Bagchi asked whether the case should be treated as murder,
“Why not convert it into Section 302?”
Senior Advocate Dave opposed this,
“My Lords, this is not an appeal seeking conversion from Section 300 to Section 320. A separate application on that issue is already pending. It is correct that the victim has filed an appeal, but that appeal is also pending and has not been tagged or taken up with the present matter.”
He insisted that no such appeal appeared before the court that day,
“With respect, as on date, there is no such appeal reflected before this Court. Your Lordships may kindly see the cause title, no appeal by the victim is shown as being listed today.”
The Bench disagreed,
“We are not concerned with the cause title alone. He is the victim before us, and he has filed an appeal.”
CJI Surya Kant observed,
“The actual sentence was 7.9 years. It’s super debatable whether remission can be allowed in cases involving moral turpitude.”
When Dave replied, “Remission is also given in murder cases,”
The CJI responded,
“Murder is a different thing altogether.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court,
“The appeal is listed for Feb 11. This is the victim’s appeal.”
The CJI then emphasised the larger constitutional principle,
“This nation prides itself on the rule of law… even the most feared criminals are given a chance to defend themselves.”
The SG supported the same,
“Even Ajmal Kasab was given a hearing… the crime was broadcast worldwide on TV.”
The CJI continued,
“The attack brutally violated our sovereignty… yet a fair hearing was provided… you are entitled to an impartial hearing that stays strictly within the relevant material.”
He also remarked,
“When the accused dies while waiting for a trial, a criminal appeal turns into an academic issue because the family seeks vindication of the member.”
Dave reiterated Sengar’s custody period,
“The person has spent more than 7 years in actual custody, with 9.7 years including remission.”
The CJI noted that a balance of rights must be maintained.
Justice Bagchi explained that the period of sentence may overlap due to Sengar’s life imprisonment in another case, and questioned why criminal history is stressed when pre-conviction bail is not even granted.
In a sharp exchange, the CJI admonished Advocate Mehmood Pracha for giving media interviews in connection with the case.
The CJI said ,
“We know that there is a media trial also going on, which we do not really approve. And the way Mr. Pracha outside the court, he goes to the media. If you are a counsel, you have no business to go there. Don’t forget I have saved you in profession.”
He continued,
“Your license would have been suspended, your exemplary posts were imposed only by the High Court. I saved you thinking that you will believe in professional ethics. You have no business to go to media when you are appearing in a case here. And if we find that you are indulging in this kind of drama, then you will face the consequences also.”
The CJI issued a final warning,
“As a Chief Justice, I can’t tolerate these things. You’re arguing here, you are conducting a parallel trial outside the court. This is not acceptable. We are only warning you. Today, take this warning and in the right earnest. That’s all.”
The Supreme Court Ordered,
- The Division Bench (DB) of the High Court must first decide the merits of the victim’s appeal, and only then can Court No. 1 proceed.
- The petition challenges the Delhi High Court’s order dated 9 January 2026, which dismissed Sengar’s plea for suspension of sentence and release on bail in CRLA 539/2020.
- He was convicted by the trial court on 4 March 2020 under Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 120B, 323, 341, 304 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act (correction done), and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
- His earlier plea for suspension of sentence was rejected on 17 June 2024, and there are no new exceptional circumstances.
- SG Mehta informed the Court that the victim’s appeal CRL LA 529/2020 is already listed for hearing soon.
- The Supreme Court has requested the High Court to take up both appeals within one week, decide on maintainability, and hear both matters together. If a change in Bench composition is required, the Chief Justice of the High Court may take appropriate steps.
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
Sengar was sentenced to ten years in prison by a trial court in connection with the custodial death of the father of the Unnao rape victim. Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the high court rejected Sengar’s plea in January, citing his criminal background.
Before the high court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed Sengar’s request for suspension in the custodial death case, which he sought on medical grounds. In another related case, Kuldeep Singh Sengar received a life sentence in December 2022 for the rape of a minor girl in 2017.
Additionally, on April 3, 2018, the family of the minor rape victim travelled to Unnao for a court hearing.
During this time, her father, Surendra, was violently attacked in broad daylight by the accused. The following day, Surendra was arrested by police on charges of illegal possession of arms. He died in custody on April 9, 2018, from multiple injuries sustained during the assault.
Recently, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stayed a Delhi High Court order that had suspended Sengar’s life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the case as a “horrific case of rape of a child,” noting that Sengar had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Supreme Court subsequently stayed the Delhi High Court’s December 23, 2025 order, which had granted Sengar a suspension of his life sentence, ruling that he should not be released following the High Court’s decision.
In December 2019, Sengar was convicted by a trial court for raping a minor girl and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. He received a life sentence, with the trial court stating that there were no mitigating circumstances.
The court emphasized that Sengar, as a public servant in a democratic society, had betrayed public trust, noting that “a single act of depravity” was sufficient to do so.
The case involves allegations that the minor survivor was kidnapped and raped by Sengar between June 11 and 20, 2017, and later sold for Rs,60,000. She was eventually located at the Maakhi police station in Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Read Live Coverage
Read More Reports On Unnao Rape Case