SUPREME COURT PERMITS UNNAO RAPE VICTIM TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS IN CBI'S CHALLENGE TO KULDEEP SINGH SENGAR'S BAIL GRANT:

The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the Unnao rape victim to be impleaded as a party in the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the bail granted to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the victim has a legitimate right to be heard in the proceedings, relying on the precedent set in the Lakhimpur Kheri matter. At the same time, the bench rejected an intervention application filed by the victim's cousin, a minor son of her father's brother, who had sought to join the case citing threats to his life and liberty if Sengar remained on bail. The court observed that the applicant should pursue an independent remedy rather than intervene in the CBI's petition, reserving his right to approach the appropriate High Court for protection of life and personal liberty. The intervention application was accordingly disposed of.

The matter pertains to the CBI's challenge against the Delhi High Court's order suspending Sengar's life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case and granting him bail pending appeal against conviction. In December 2025, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's bail order. Sengar, a former Uttar Pradesh MLA, was convicted in 2019 by a special CBI court for raping a minor girl and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case gained national prominence due to allegations of prolonged harassment, intimidation, and violence against the survivor and her family by Sengar and his associates. The CBI, on Supreme Court directions, investigated related crimes, including attacks on family members. Sengar is also serving a 10-year sentence imposed in 2020 for the culpable homicide of the survivor's father.

The Delhi High Court, while suspending the sentence, held that the aggravated offence provisions under Section 5(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code did not apply, reasoning that Sengar could not be classified as a “public servant” within the meaning of those sections. It proceeded to grant bail on that basis. The CBI, in its plea before the Supreme Court, contended that this interpretation dilutes the protective intent of the POCSO Act, a special welfare legislation aimed at safeguarding children from sexual offences and treating abuse of authority as an aggravating factor. The agency argued that an MLA, as a holder of public office, should fall within the ambit of “public servant” for the purposes of enhanced punishment under POCSO, and that a narrow technical reading defeats the statute's object. The CBI further submitted that the High Court failed to adopt a purposive interpretation consistent with Parliament's intent to provide robust safeguards for minors.

Additionally, the CBI assailed the suspension of sentence, asserting that prolonged incarceration alone cannot justify bail in heinous crimes like the rape of a minor. It emphasized settled Supreme Court principles that suspension of a life sentence is an exception rather than the rule, permissible only in rare and compelling circumstances. The bench did not proceed with the substantive hearing of the CBI's petition on Monday due to the absence of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Senior Advocate N Hariharan, representing Sengar, requested an early listing, highlighting that the High Court's grant of liberty had been curtailed by the stay. The Chief Justice assured that a hearing date would be fixed soon. The proceedings underscore the ongoing judicial scrutiny of bail decisions in high-profile sexual offence cases involving minors and public figures.