The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the recent verdict of the Delhi High Court, which suspended the life sentence imposed on former Uttar Pradesh legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case and directed his release on bail.
The Vacation Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to Sengar on a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while setting aside the High Court judgement delivered on December 23. It clarified that Sengar will not be released until the matter is examined in detail.
While acknowledging the settled principle that appellate courts ordinarily refrain from staying orders granting bail without affording the beneficiary an opportunity of being heard, the Apex Court held that the present case disclosed exceptional circumstances. It noted that the respondent stood convicted in multiple proceedings, including for a distinct and grave offence, and that substantial questions of law arose warranting immediate judicial intervention. Accordingly, the Court directed the filing of a counter-affidavit within four weeks.
The Apex Court prima facie expressed concern over the High Court’s interpretation of the expression ‘public servant’ under Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It noted that a restrictive construction excluding elected representatives from the ambit of the provision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially insulating lawmakers from enhanced penal consequences envisaged under the statute.
It observed that while the High Court judges who rendered the impugned decision were jurists of high standing, judicial fallibility necessitates appellate scrutiny where statutory interpretation may result in anomalous outcomes. Such an interpretation could lead to a situation where lower-ranking officials, such as police constables, would attract aggravated liability under POCSO, whereas holders of constitutional office might escape similar accountability, it added.
On December 23, the High Court suspended the life sentence awarded to Sengar by a trial court in December 2019. The trial court had convicted him under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act for the rape of a minor and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
The High Court prima facie held that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was not made out. It concluded that Sengar could not be categorised as a public servant for the purposes of Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC, nor could he be said to occupy a position of trust or authority under Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act.
Challenging the High Court’s reasoning, the CBI contended that the judgment suffered from serious errors of law. It argued that a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly occupies a position of constitutional trust, discharges public functions, and exercises authority that squarely attracts the aggravated offence provisions under the POCSO framework.
The agency further submitted that the High Court failed to consider the legislative intent underlying Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which accords overriding effect to the statute in cases of inconsistency with other laws. It was also pointed out that Sengar has been convicted in a separate case for the murder of the survivor’s father, a factor bearing directly on the question of bail and public safety.
One of the grounds relied upon by the High Court to suspend the sentence was the observation that Sengar had already undergone the maximum sentence of seven years prescribed under the unamended law. This reasoning was contested by the CBI, which submitted that amendments to the POCSO Act and the IPC prescribe a minimum sentence of twenty years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the enhanced sentencing regime came into force subsequent to the commission of the offence, thereby limiting its retrospective application. Nonetheless, the Bench observed that legislative amendments did not create a new offence but reflected Parliament’s intent to impose stricter punishment for crimes against children, a factor relevant at the stage of sentencing and bail consideration.
The CBI also raised grave concerns regarding the safety of the survivor and her family, highlighting Sengar’s political influence and criminal antecedents. It was argued that his release during the pendency of the appeal would not only endanger the survivor but also erode public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving sexual violence against minors.
The post Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court verdict granting bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar in Unnao rape case appeared first on India Legal.