Supreme Court vacation bench hears CBI appeal against Kuldeep Singh Sengar bail [LIVE UPDATES]

The corridors of justice witnessed a significant development recently as the Supreme Court’s vacation bench took up a crucial appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appeal challenges the interim bail granted by the Delhi High Court to Kuldeep Singh Sengar, the former Uttar Pradesh BJP MLA who stands convicted in the infamous Unnao rape case. This high-profile hearing underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing individual liberty with the demands of justice, especially in cases involving powerful individuals and heinous crimes.

Sengar, already serving a life sentence for the rape of a minor in 2017 and a 10-year sentence for the custodial death of the victim’s father, was granted interim bail for his daughter’s wedding. The CBI’s immediate move to challenge this decision before the apex court highlights the agency’s apprehension regarding the implications of his temporary release. The proceedings, closely watched by legal experts and the public alike, are a testament to the continued scrutiny surrounding the Unnao case and its pursuit of justice.

The Contested Bail and CBI’s Strenuous Appeal

Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s conviction in December 2019 by a Delhi trial court marked a watershed moment in the Unnao saga, a case that had gripped national attention due to the brutality of the crime and the political clout of the accused. He was found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Subsequently, in March 2020, Sengar, along with others, was also convicted in the death of the victim’s father, who died in judicial custody, further cementing the gravity of his offenses.

Despite these severe convictions, Sengar was granted interim bail for two weeks by the Delhi High Court in January 2024, citing his daughter’s wedding as the primary reason. This decision immediately drew criticism and concern from various quarters, prompting the CBI to swiftly move the Supreme Court. The CBI, represented by senior legal counsel, articulated several compelling arguments against the interim bail. They emphasized the extreme seriousness of the crimes for which Sengar has been convicted, pointing out that such offenses fall into the rarest of rare categories, demanding stringent adherence to judicial principles.

A core contention of the CBI’s appeal revolved around the potential for Sengar to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, given his significant political background and influence within Uttar Pradesh. The agency argued that even a temporary release could compromise the delicate fabric of justice, especially since related legal proceedings and appeals are still ongoing. Furthermore, the CBI highlighted that Sengar is a convicted prisoner, and the grounds for granting him temporary liberty, even for a family event, should be weighed meticulously against the public interest and the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

Supreme Court’s Deliberation and Legal Nuances

The Supreme Court’s vacation bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar, meticulously heard the arguments presented by both sides. The CBI’s counsel underscored the prima facie merits of their appeal, stressing that the High Court’s order, while seemingly based on humanitarian grounds, overlooked the overarching public interest and the potential for misuse of temporary freedom by a convicted politician. They argued that the principle of “special circumstances” for bail, especially for those serving life sentences for heinous crimes, must be applied with extreme caution.

On the other hand, Sengar’s legal team presented arguments centered on his fundamental right to personal liberty and the specific, time-bound nature of the interim bail for a familial obligation. They contended that attending a daughter’s wedding is a significant life event and that the conditions imposed by the High Court for bail, such as reporting to the police and restrictions on public appearances, were sufficient to mitigate any risks. They also argued that Sengar had abided by all judicial directives during previous legal processes.

During the hearing, one of the Justices observed, “While personal liberty is paramount, the gravity of the offences and the potential impact on public trust in the justice delivery system cannot be overlooked, especially in cases of this nature.” This statement encapsulates the delicate balance the Supreme Court often navigates when adjudicating such sensitive matters. The bench thoroughly scrutinized the High Court’s order, examining the reasoning behind the grant of interim bail and comparing it with established legal precedents concerning bail for convicted individuals, particularly in serious criminal cases. The court’s deliberation focused on whether the specific circumstances presented by Sengar truly warranted a departure from the general principle that convicted persons should remain in custody.

Broader Implications and Public Scrutiny

The Supreme Court’s involvement in Sengar’s bail matter extends beyond the immediate legal question; it carries significant broader implications for the Indian justice system. This case is a stark reminder of the challenges in ensuring justice for victims of sexual assault, especially when the accused wields considerable power and influence. The public and media attention surrounding the Unnao case has consistently highlighted the need for robust judicial oversight and an unwavering commitment to upholding the law, irrespective of the perpetrator’s status.

The judiciary’s role in such high-profile cases is crucial for reinforcing public faith in its impartiality and effectiveness. Decisions rendered by the apex court set important precedents and send clear messages about the priorities of justice. A vacation bench hearing such an urgent matter also emphasizes the Supreme Court’s continuous functioning to address critical legal challenges, ensuring that justice is not delayed even during periods of judicial recess. The outcome of this appeal will undoubtedly be seen as a bellwether for how the Indian legal system balances humanitarian considerations with the imperatives of justice for severe criminal offenses.

The Supreme Court has thus heard extensive arguments from both the CBI and Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s counsel. The decision on the CBI’s appeal against Sengar’s interim bail remains keenly awaited, as it will reaffirm key judicial principles and influence future jurisprudence in similar high-stakes cases across the nation.