Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.G. Masih on Tuesday put on hold a Delhi High Court order that had suspended the sentence of former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and granted him bail while his appeal against conviction in the Unnao rape case is pending.

The Bench issued notice on petitions challenging the High Court’s decision and stayed its operation in view of the “peculiar facts” of the case. In its order, the bench said: "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 s.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. 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 Court ordered.

Also Read: Criminal Revision By Informant Need Not Abate On Death; Supreme Court Allows Victim’s Heir To Continue

The bench was hearing two challenges—one by the CBI and another filed by advocates Anjale Patel and Pooja Shilpkar—both assailing the High Court’s suspension of sentence and bail to Sengar.

Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court wrongly concluded that aggravated offence provisions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were not attracted because Sengar could not be treated as a public servant. He submitted that the POCSO framework focuses on penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and that aggravation can arise where the offender wields dominance over a child.

Mehta also contended that since “public servant” is not defined in POCSO, it should be understood in context—covering those who hold a dominant position vis-à-vis the child and abuse that position. He maintained that Sengar, as an influential MLA at the relevant time, exercised such dominance.

During submissions, Mehta urged the court to intervene, stating: "POCSO Act to have overriding effect...this convict also held guilty of killing the survivor's father and some other people...he is still in jail...he has not been able to come out...I urge your lordships to stay the order. We are answerable to the child who was 15 years old!", he said.

Senior advocates Siddharth Dave and N. Hariharan, appearing for Sengar, opposed the CBI’s position, arguing that an MLA cannot automatically be brought within the “public servant” category for the purpose of POCSO aggravated offences. They also submitted that definitions from other laws cannot be imported into a penal statute unless explicitly provided, and pointed to the way charges were framed during trial.

However, the CJI flagged the implications of excluding elected representatives from the “public servant” understanding, remarking: "If this interpretation is accepted, a constable or patwari will be public servant but MLA/MP will not be and get exempted", he said.

Justice Maheshwari also noted that the High Court had not examined the applicability of Section 376(2)(i) IPC—which was in force at the time of the alleged offence and concerns rape of a minor—indicating that the legal questions require closer scrutiny.

Explaining why the stay was being granted despite the general principle of hearing a person already enlarged on bail, the CJI said: "Matter requires consideration. We are inclined to stay the order. General principle is once someone has been released person will be heard. But here, he continues to be in custody (in a separate case),”

The court granted time for a counter-affidavit and will hear the matter further after responses are filed.

Background

The Delhi High Court had suspended Sengar’s sentence while granting bail, holding that aggravated offence provisions under Section 5(c) of POCSO and Section 376(2) IPC were not attracted because he could not be categorised as a “public servant” for those provisions.

Also Read: Commercial Courts Act Section 13(2) Non-Obstante Clause Prevails Over Delhi High Court Act Section 10; Delhi High Court Dismisses Arbitration Appeals As Not Maintainable

The CBI, challenging that approach, argued that such a narrow reading undermines POCSO’s protective intent, especially in cases involving abuse of authority or dominance, and said long incarceration alone should not justify suspension of a life sentence in heinous offences.

Sengar was convicted in 2019 by a special CBI court for raping a minor girl in Unnao and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is also serving a 10-year sentence imposed in 2020 in a separate case connected to the culpable homicide of the survivor’s father.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar; Anjale Patel and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).21367/2025; Diary No(s).75128/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AG Masih