The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing on the CBI’s plea challenging suspension of Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life sentence in the Unnao rape case. The Court said Sengar will remain in custody and key legal questions on “public servant” status will be examined in May.
The Supreme Court on Monday postponed the hearing on the CBI’s petition challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The Court said the matter will now be heard in the first week of May after the nine-judge bench completes hearing the Sabarimala review case.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Sura Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Delhi High Court order which had suspended Sengar’s life sentence.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sengar, raised the issue that another related case involving the alleged custodial death of the victim’s father is still pending in the Delhi High Court and has not been heard properly.
Rohatgi told the Court that Sengar has already been sentenced to 10 years in the custodial death case and argued that he should be granted bail.
He said,
“Ten years is likely to be completed soon and yet no substantial hearing has taken place in the high court. I should get bail in this matter,”.
He also alleged that even the victim’s lawyer was seeking adjournments in the High Court.
However, lawyer Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the victim, denied the allegation and said that only one adjournment had been sought in the High Court. The Chief Justice then noted that both sides agreed that no adjournment would be sought in the Delhi High Court in the related case involving Sengar. The Court recorded this assurance and said,
“The lawyers will extend full cooperation (in the HC),”.
Earlier, on December 29 last year, the Supreme Court had stayed the Delhi High Court order which had suspended Sengar’s life sentence in the Unnao rape case and had directed that he should not be released from custody. The Court had observed that important legal questions had arisen in the matter which required detailed consideration.
The Supreme Court also noted that generally, when a convict or undertrial is granted bail by a trial court or High Court, such an order should not normally be stayed without hearing the person. However, in this case, the Court noted special circumstances because Sengar was also convicted in another case and remained in custody in that matter.
While passing the earlier order, the Court had said,
“In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order,”.
The Supreme Court said that several important questions of law had arisen in the case and therefore the matter required detailed hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, had strongly opposed the High Court order and argued that the case involved a serious crime. He described it as a “horrific rape” of a minor child and requested the Court to stay the High Court order.
The Delhi High Court in its order dated December 23, 2025 had suspended Sengar’s life sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The High Court had observed that Sengar was convicted under Section 5(C) of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant, but it held that an elected representative does not fall within the definition of “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. On this basis, the High Court granted him suspension of sentence, noting that he had already spent more than seven years in jail.
The High Court order led to criticism from several sections of society, and protests were also held by the victim, her family, and activists. Sengar had originally challenged the December 2019 trial court judgment which had convicted him in the Unnao rape case.
Although the High Court suspended his life sentence in the rape case, he remained in jail because he was also serving a 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the victim’s father and had not been granted bail in that case.
It is important to note that the Unnao rape case and all related cases were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019 to ensure a fair trial. Sengar’s appeal in the custodial death case is also pending, and in that case he has requested suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a significant amount of time in jail.
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the CBI referred to the Court’s earlier judgment in the L K Advani case and argued that any person holding public office, including MPs and MLAs, should be treated as a “public servant”.
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
The CBI argued that the Delhi High Court made an error by holding that Sengar, who was an MLA at the time of the offence, was not a public servant under the law, and therefore wrongly granted him bail.
The Supreme Court will now hear the matter in May, where it will examine the legal question of whether an elected representative can be treated as a public servant under the POCSO Act and IPC, and whether the High Court was right in suspending Sengar’s life sentence.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Attempt To Murder
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
