Supreme Court: While considering this application filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Delhi High Court’s decision dated 23-12-2025 (impugned order), wherein it had suspended the sentence of Unnao Rape Case convict Kuldeep Sengar and directing conditional release; the 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI., J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, JJ., stayed the operation of the impugned order, thereby holding that the convict shall not be released from custody pursuant to the impugned order.
Background:
It has been alleged that the convict had raped the Victim/Survivor by enticing and inducing the Victim/Survivor to accompany her, on the pretext of providing a job at the residence of the convict. The Victim/Survivor did not reveal the incident to anyone, as she was threatened by the convict. However, the Victim/Survivor later came to confide in her uncle who then relayed the facts to the Victim/Survivor’s mother whose instance the FIR was registered. However, since the local police did not take any action, mother of the Victim/Survivor was constrained to approach the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao, UP, alleging inter alia that the convict had threatened the Victim/Survivor to kill her and her family.
The Victim/Survivor registered FIR under at Unnao under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Investigation into these allegations was handed over to the CBI. Subsequently, another case under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC pertaining to alleged offences of kidnapping, confinement for sexual exploitation and gang rape upon the Victim/Survivor was transferred to CBI for further investigation.
The Final Report also takes note of the circumstances surrounding the death of the father of the Victim/Survivor in judicial custody.
Eventually, Kuldeep Sengar was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376/363/366 of the IPC read with Sections 5(c)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 16-12-2019 passed by the District & Sessions Judge — West District, Tis Hazari Courts. Vide a separate order on sentence dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Trial Court, the Convict was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of life, along with a fine of Rs. 25,00,000 and an additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 payable to the mother of the survivor. Against the Impugned Judgment as well as the Order on sentence, the Convict approached Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court’s Impugned Order on Kuldeep Sengar:
On 23-12-2025, the Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., prima facie opined that for the purpose of suspension of sentence, the convict (therein appellant) cannot be brought into the ambit of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, or under Section 376(2) of the IPC, which provides for the punishment of imprisonment for remainder of his natural life. “This being a prima facie observation, this Court does not deem it fit to go into the merits of the case as to whether the Appellant could be then held guilty of offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or not”. The Court for the time being, however, applying the law as it stood before the amendment to the POCSO Act in 2019, pointed out that the minimum punishment that a person can be given under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was 7 years, which the convict has already undergone. “The Appellant was sentenced for the remainder of his life and as on 30-11-2025, he has spent about 7 years and 5 months under incarceration, which is more than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 4 of the POCSO, as it existed at the time when the offence was committed”.
The High Court expressed satisfaction that offence under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act was not made out against the Convict on account of him not falling within the definition of a “public servant”. The High Court therefore suspended the sentence of the Convict during the pendency of the Appeal and released him on bail on the following conditions:
-
The Convict to furnish a security in the sum of Rs 15,00,000 with three sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. The sureties must be residents of Delhi.
-
The Convict was directed not to come within a 5 km radius of the place of residence of the Victim/Survivor.
-
The Convict was directed to stay in Delhi during the pendency of the Appeal to ensure that the Appellant is available for completing the remaining part of the sentence in case he is found to be guilty.
-
The Convict was directed not to threaten the Victim/Survivor or the mother of the Victim/Survivor
-
The Convict was directed to deposit his passport with the Trial Court.
-
The Convict was directed to report in person to the Local Police Station once a week.
Supreme Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the impugned order and hearing the contentions raised by the parties, the Court noted that ordinarily when a convict/under-trial has been released on bail pursuant to an order passed by the Trial Court or the High Court, such order shall not be stayed by the Supreme Court without hearing such person. However, the instant matter revolves around certain unique facts and circumstances, wherein the convict has been separately convicted and sentenced in a case under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and is consequently still in custody. Therein as well the convict has applied for bail, and after hearing the arguments, the order is said to have been reserved by the Court concerned.
Therefore, with the peculiarities involved in the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to put a stay on Delhi High Court’s impugned order.
The Court further stated that the victim/survivor has a statutory right to file a separate special leave petition.
The Court directed this matter to be posted on 20-1-2026.
[CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).21367/2025, Order dated 29-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Nasadiya Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anjale Patel In Person, Adv. Ms. Pooja Shilpkar In Person, Adv. Mr. Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pramod Yadav, Adv. Mr. Manish Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Ms. Priya Maurya, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Pandey, Adv. Ms. Khushboo, Adv. Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manisha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Nuzhat Naseem, Adv. Mr. Sikander Raza, Adv. Mr. Kumail Abbas, Adv. Mr. Asad Mirza, Adv. Mr. Hasan, Adv. Ms. Heema, Adv. Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.P.M Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Rekha Punya Angara, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandala, Adv. Mr. Amit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Poonja, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Hemant Shah, Adv. Ms. Kamna Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Singh, Adv.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Image source: The Quint