The Supreme Court, in its ruling, noted that Kuldeep Sengar is currently serving a sentence for another unrelated conviction, making it impossible to grant him bail at this juncture. The Court also issued a notice to Sengar, requesting him to present his views on the objections raised by the CBI. This marks a temporary halt to the High Court’s bail order, effectively ensuring that the accused remains in custody.
In the course of the hearing, former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju stirred controversy by arguing in favour of granting bail to Kuldeep Sengar. Justice Katju stated that Sengar had already served more than eight years in prison, and, in his view, the Delhi High Court’s ruling was not a final judgment, but merely an interim order. He suggested that the court had only considered one aspect of the case—whether Sengar, as a public official, could be prosecuted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Katju further argued that the High Court had not yet concluded whether the complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged crime or whether Sengar was guilty. In his opinion, if it took another ten years for the final verdict to be reached, and if it was later found that the trial court’s decision was incorrect, who would be held responsible for the 18 years Sengar had spent in jail?
In response to these arguments, the CBI presented its objections, which the Supreme Court duly considered before staying the bail. The Court’s decision was met with appreciation from the victim’s legal counsel, who expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court for intervening. The victim’s lawyer remarked, “We thank the Supreme Court for its clear instructions. The accused will not be released under any circumstances, and the bail granted by the High Court has been stayed. The opposing party has been given time to submit a counter-affidavit, and until then, Kuldeep Sengar will remain in jail.”
This ruling is a crucial step in the ongoing legal battle concerning the Unnao rape case, which has attracted widespread attention across the country. The case has raised questions about the role of influential figures in the legal system and the speed at which justice is dispensed in such high-profile matters. The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces the importance of upholding due process, ensuring that justice is delivered without undue delay.