SC asks Delhi HC to decide Kuldeep Sengar's bail plea in custodial-death case within 3 months

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the High Court to take up the case expeditiously, observing: "We deem it a fit case to request the High Court to hear the appeal and decide the same, but not later than three months."

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant immediate relief to rape-convict and former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar on his plea seeking suspension of sentence and bail in the custodial-death case of the rape victim's father, but requested the Delhi High Court to hear and decide the matter within three months.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the High Court to take up the case expeditiously, observing: "We deem it a fit case to request the High Court to hear the appeal and decide the same, but not later than three months."

Sengar had approached the Supreme Court challenging the January 19, 2026, order of the Delhi High Court declining suspension of sentence and consequential release on bail in the custodial-death case. The challenge arises from his conviction, by a March 4, 2020 judgment, under Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, and 203, read with Section 120-B of the IPC, for which he was sentenced to a maximum of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, with separate sentences for individual offences.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sengar, submitted that the appellant had already undergone over seven years and six months of actual incarceration and that continued denial of bail was unjustified due to delays in the hearing. The Court, however, noted that the criminal appeal itself was now listed for final hearing before the High Court on February 11, rendering the prayer for suspension of sentence largely academic.

Opposing the plea, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, pointed out that Sengar is already serving life imprisonment in a separate rape conviction, and that no exceptional or compelling circumstances existed to warrant bail.

The Bench observed that issues relating to remission or moral turpitude need not be examined once the appeal is ripe for final hearing, noting that the appropriate course was to ensure an out-of-turn hearing rather than suspend the sentence.

"In cases of conviction, the normal rule is that the appeal should be heard before completion of sentence," the CJI said, adding that the victim's right to pursue her own appeal could not be curtailed.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that courts are generally circumspect in granting bail where the accused has serious criminal antecedents, particularly in cases involving custodial death, for which a police officer has already been convicted.

The Court also noted the submission that the victim's side has filed a separate appeal challenging the quantum of sentence. While refraining from expressing any opinion on that appeal, the Bench requested the Delhi High Court to, in the interest of justice, hear and decide both matters together, if feasible.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court requested the Delhi High Court to take up the matter within one week and conclude the hearing within the stipulated three-month period.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India strongly reprimanded Advocate Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the rape victim, for allegedly engaging in a media trial.

"This media trial, which is happening, is not proper. Mr Pracha, this media trial by you outside the court--don't think I don't know," the CJI said.
"I saved your licence, thinking you would stay true to the profession. If we find you indulging in this kind of drama outside the court, we will not tolerate it. You are conducting a parallel trial outside. Take this warning in right earnest."

"As the Chief Justice of India, I will not tolerate this. We are only warning you. We have conveyed our message. I hope people will follow it," the CJI added.