Skip to content

    Unnao Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Kuldeep Sengar, Suspends Life Sentence In Rape Case

    High Court Judgements

    1. Home
    2. /High Court Judgements

    Unnao Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Kuldeep Sengar, Suspends Life Sentence In Rape Case

    The Delhi High Court has suspended the life imprisonment sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, holding that the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” under Section 5(c) POCSO was prima facie not made out. The Court ruled that an MLA is not a “public servant” under the IPC definition applicable to POCSO.

    Manjit Thakur
    Dec 25, 2025·5 min read
    Unnao Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Kuldeep Sengar, Suspends Life Sentence In Rape Case

    The Delhi High Court has suspended the life imprisonment sentence awarded to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted the relief primarily on the ground that the offence of "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act was, prima facie, not made out against him.

    The court observed that Sengar could not be classified as a "public servant" for the purpose of the POCSO Act, a classification that had originally led the trial court to award him a life term for the remainder of his natural life.

    In December 2019, the trial court had convicted Sengar for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, an offence becomes "aggravated" if it is committed by certain categories of people, including public servants, police officers, or persons in a position of trust. The punishment for such an offence is significantly higher, starting at 20 years and extending to life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life.

    The trial court had held that since Sengar was a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) at the time of the crime, he fell within the definition of a public servant. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation.

    Advertisement

    The High Court pointed out that the POCSO Act does not define "public servant" on its own. Instead, Section 2 of the Act states that words not defined in POCSO should take their meaning from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Juvenile Justice Act, or the Information Technology Act.

    Crucially, the Bench noted that while the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) defines an MLA as a public servant, the POCSO Act does not list the PC Act as a reference for definitions. Under Section 21 of the IPC, which is the relevant reference for POCSO, an MLA is not explicitly categorized as a public servant. Therefore, the court held that the stricter "aggravated" charge under Section 5(c) could not be applied to Sengar at this stage.

    By removing the "aggravated" tag, the court noted that the offence would fall under Section 3 (Penetrative Sexual Assault), which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

    The Bench observed: "At this stage, being satisfied that (i) offence under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act is not made out against the Appellant on account of him not falling within the definition of a 'public servant', (ii) only an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act would be made out... the Court is inclined to suspend the sentence."

    At the time the crime was committed in 2017, the minimum punishment under Section 4 was seven years. The court recorded that Sengar has already spent 7 years and 5 months in custody, which is more than the minimum sentence prescribed before the law was amended in 2019.

    The counsel for the victim/survivor had strongly opposed the suspension, arguing that her life was in danger and that the investigation had been compromised. However, the High Court held that once it is prima facie convinced that the life-term provision (Section 5) is not applicable, the prisoner cannot be denied bail solely based on security apprehensions.

    "Courts cannot keep a person in custody being apprehensive that the police or paramilitary may not do its job properly," the Bench remarked. The court added that such a view would undermine the work of the police forces.

    Instead, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of the area where the victim resides to personally supervise and ensure her protection. It also ordered the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) to continue providing her with sufficient accommodation.

    While granting bail, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the safety of the survivor and the integrity of the ongoing appeal:

    Sengar must furnish a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh with three sureties of the same amount.

    He is strictly prohibited from entering a 5 km radius of the victim’s residence.

    He must remain in Delhi and report to the local police station every Monday.

    He is barred from contacting or threatening the victim or her mother.

    He must surrender his passport to the trial court.

    The court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail.

    It is important to note that despite this relief, Kuldeep Singh Sengar will not be released from prison immediately. He is also serving a separate 10-year sentence for the custodial death of the victim’s father. His application for suspension of sentence in that matter is still pending before the High Court.

    Sengar was also convicted of murdering the victim's father in connivance with police officers from Makhi village in Unnao. The trial in these matters was famously transferred from Lucknow to Delhi’s Tis Hazari Courts by the Supreme Court in 2019 to ensure a fair and speedy trial.

    Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI

    Explore related legal coverage

    Continue with reporting and analysis connected to this article.

    Browse High Court Judgements

    Understand the law

    • Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab: A Landmark Case in Indian Evidence Law

      #criminallaw

    More from this court

    • Low Attendance Cannot Automatically Bar Law Exams: Delhi HC

      DELHIHIGHCOURT

    • Delhi High Court Holds HIV Infection Covered Under “Person with Disability” Definition

      DELHIHIGHCOURT

    Related legal topics

    • Allahabad HC Bans Commercial Use of School and College Playgrounds

      High Court Judgements

    • Mother Can Claim Maintenance From Son, Kerala HC Says

      High Court Judgements

    • Caste Abuse over Phone Not Atrocity under Scst Act if HC

      High Court Judgements

    Advertisement

    Manjit Thakur

    Law Student | Passionate about Advocacy, Legal Research & Social Justice | Future Litigator

    See more from Manjit →
    Jurisight logoJurisight logo

    Simplifying legal knowledge for professionals and citizens. Your daily source for Supreme Court, High Court, and Business Law updates.

    Platform

    HomeAll ArticlesTop NewsSC UpdatesHC Updates

    Categories

    Business LawConstitutionalCriminal LawCivil LawKnow Your Law

    Weekly Digest

    Join 15,000+ others and get the week's most important legal updates.

    © 2026 Jurisight. All rights reserved.
    Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyCookie ConsentLegal Disclaimer