Unnao rape case: After 7 years, Delhi HC suspends life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Sengar

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday suspended the sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, noting that he has already spent seven years and five months in prison. Sengar is currently serving a life term following his conviction by a trial court in December 2019.

The high court ruled that the suspension of sentence will remain in force until his appeal against the conviction is decided. However, Sengar will continue to remain in jail as he is also serving a separate 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the rape survivor’s father and has not been granted bail in that matter.

As per the case, Sengar had kidnapped and raped the minor survivor in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao on June 7,  2017. He was convicted in the case in December 2017.

A bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed the suspension of his jail term, subject to strict conditions. Sengar has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh along with three sureties of the same amount.

The court also barred him from entering a five-kilometre radius of the survivor’s residence in Delhi and restrained him from threatening the survivor or her mother. It warned that “violation of any of the conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.”

Addressing concerns raised about the survivor’s safety, the bench said it expects her to continue receiving CRPF security cover. “At the same time, however, the argument of keeping the appellant (Sengar) in custody because of threat perception to the victim/ survivor, in the opinion of this court, is not a tenable argument to deny the benefit of section 389 CrPC to the appellant,” the court observed.

The bench added that courts cannot keep an individual in custody merely due to apprehensions that security agencies may not perform their duties effectively. “Such an observation or such a thought process would undermine the laudable work of our police/paramilitary forces,” it said.

The court directed that all three sureties must be residents of Delhi and ordered Sengar to remain in the national capital for the duration of the appeal proceedings. He was also instructed to surrender his passport before the trial court and to report to the local police station every Monday at 10 am.

The appeal has been listed for hearing before the appropriate bench on January 16, 2026, subject to the Chief Justice’s orders. The court further noted that continuing to keep Sengar in custody after he has already undergone over seven years of imprisonment would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Referring to the survivor’s safety, the court recalled that the Supreme Court had transferred the trial from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi considering her vulnerability and the fact that her father was killed, a crime for which Sengar has been convicted.

The bench directed the deputy commissioner of police in the area where the survivor currently resides to personally supervise her security arrangements during the pendency of the appeal. It also noted that the state continues to provide accommodation to the survivor and that the Delhi Commission for Women is responsible for ensuring suitable housing, which must continue until further orders.

Sengar’s appeal against his conviction in the custodial death case of the survivor’s father is also pending before the court. In that matter, he has sought suspension of sentence, citing the length of time already spent in prison.

Reacting to the order, the survivor told PTI that she was dissatisfied with the decision. “I have small children. There is an elderly, differently-abled mother-in-law and my husband at home. The safety of my children is the biggest concern,” she said.

She alleged that during the trial, her family was repeatedly required to attend court proceedings and questioned why security provided to her family members, lawyers and witnesses was withdrawn. “Usually, a verdict is pronounced within two or three days after the conclusion of arguments. But in this case, the decision came after three months. Even before the verdict, security for the family and witnesses was withdrawn,” she claimed.

She further said, “In the serious crime where my father was murdered and I was subjected to rape, the accused is granted bail after serving a few years in prison. This raises the question of what kind of justice this is.”