Kuldeep Sengar's bail in Unnao rape case challenged in Supreme Court

Two women lawyers have filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, arguing the HC ignored his criminal propensity and influence.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and grant him bail in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The plea has been filed by two women lawyers, Anjale Patel and Pooja Shilpkar, seeking the setting aside of the Delhi High Court ruling that gave relief to the Sengar.

Plea Cites Sengar's Influence, Criminal Propensity

In their plea, the two petitioners argue that the High Court, in its decision, ignored material prosecution evidence demonstrating the extreme brutality of the crimes, the accused's criminal propensity, and his capacity to misuse muscle power and financial influence. The accused Sengar even orchestrated the murder of the victim's father while he was in judicial custody, with the clear intent to silence the family and derail the course of justice, the plea submits.

Additionally, the plea stated that, recognising the accused's influence and capacity for intimidation, the Supreme Court had earlier transferred the trial from Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, to the Tis Hazari Courts in Delhi to ensure a fair trial and protect the victim and witnesses. The High Court completely disregarded this judicial determination while granting bail, which defeated the very purpose of transferring the trial outside the State, it adds.

Moreover, the plea contends that the High Court granted bail to Sengar without recording cogent reasons, correctly assessing the gravity of the offences and considering the real likelihood of witness intimidation, evidence tampering and further abuse of liberty. The HC acted contrary to settled law that courts must exercise exceptional caution in granting bail in cases involving rape and murder, particularly where the accused has criminal antecedents and a demonstrated ability to undermine the justice system, the plea argues.

"The liberty of the accused cannot be elevated over the rights of the victim and society, particularly in a case where the accused has previously abused his liberty, terrorised witnesses and undermined the rule of law. Therefore, the interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted to secure the ends of justice, restore public faith in the justice delivery system and ensure that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to have been done, elevated over the rights of the victim and society, particularly in a case where the accused has previously abused his liberty, terrorised witnesses and undermined the rule of law", it reads.

It is further contended that the High Court misinterpreted the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while considering the bail application of the accused, who was a sitting MLA at the time of the offence. MPs and MLAs perform sovereign public functions, draw public emoluments and fall squarely within the statutory meaning of "public servant", as consistently recognised by this Court, the plea states.

By excluding the accused from this classification, the High Court adopted a perverse and legally unsustainable interpretation and granted him an unwarranted benefit of bail. "Such erroneous interpretation strikes at the root of the administration of criminal justice and undermines the statutory objective of curbing corruption and criminal misconduct by persons holding public office", the plea argues.

CBI to Also Challenge Bail Order

As previously reported, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will also move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court order. The probe agency has examined the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the Unnao Rape Case and has decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court at the earliest, an official said.

Details of High Court's Ruling

Earlier, the division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar suspended the sentence and granted bail to Sengar. He has been granted relief on the condition that he furnish a bail bond of Rs 15 lakh. However, he will remain in custody as he has not yet been granted bail in the victim's father's custodial death matter. An appeal and application for suspension of sentence is pending before the High Court of Delhi. He was sentenced to 10 years in that case.

While granting bail, the High Court directed that Sengar must not enter the 5-kilometre area where the victim resides in Delhi.

It is also directed that Sengar Shall remain in Delhi. He shall not contact the victim's family members. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)