The Delhi High Court on Monday, January 19, 2026, refused to grant bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the case relating to the custodial death of the father of the Unnao rape survivor, declining to suspend his 10-year sentence.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the gravity of the offence outweighed the defence’s plea that Sengar had already spent nearly nine years in custody. While Sengar continues to serve a life sentence in the 2017 minor rape case, his bail in that matter granted briefly in December 2025 remains stayed by the Supreme Court.
The survivor’s counsel and the CBI opposed bail, warning that Sengar’s release would endanger the survivor and her family, while the defence argued lack of direct evidence and cited his conduct during earlier interim relief.
High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence
The Delhi High Court’s order came while hearing Sengar’s plea seeking suspension of sentence in the custodial death case, which stems from the death of the rape survivor’s father in police custody in April 2018.
Rejecting the application, Justice Ravinder Dudeja underscored that custodial violence strikes at the heart of the rule of law and that long incarceration alone cannot be grounds for bail in such serious offences. Sengar has been in jail since April 13, 2018, and is currently serving a 10-year sentence awarded by the trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The trial court, while sentencing him, had observed that “no leniency” could be shown in a case involving the killing of a family’s “sole bread earner,” especially given the wider context of intimidation and abuse faced by the survivor.
Along with Sengar, the court had also sentenced his brother Atul Singh Sengar and five others to 10 years’ imprisonment for their roles in the custodial assault. During Monday’s hearing, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the survivor’s legal team strongly opposed any relief, arguing that releasing Sengar would undermine justice and pose a continuing threat to the survivor and her family .
Arguments From Both Sides And Case Trajectory
Appearing for the rape survivor, advocate Mehmood Pracha told the court that the survivor continues to face harassment, intimidation and defamation on social media, even years after the crime, and that Sengar’s release would exacerbate these risks.
He submitted that the gravity of the offence, coupled with its long-lasting psychological and social impact on the survivor, ruled out the possibility of bail. The prosecution also pointed to the systemic abuse of power involved in the custodial death, emphasising that it was not an isolated act but part of a broader pattern of coercion following the rape complaint.
On the other hand, Sengar’s counsel senior advocate Manish Vasisth, assisted by advocate Kanhaiya Singhal argued that Sengar had already undergone nearly nine years of incarceration, leaving only about 11 months of the sentence to be served in the custodial death case.
The defence claimed that Sengar was not present at the spot on April 3, 2018, when the assault on the survivor’s father allegedly took place. It also questioned the trial court’s reliance on call detail records, noting that Sengar’s secretary Santosh Mishra, who allegedly spoke to him on the phone that day, was not examined as a witness. Alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies were cited to challenge their credibility.
The defence further submitted that during an earlier interim suspension of sentence, granted to allow Sengar to attend his daughter’s marriage, he did not misuse the liberty, arguing this demonstrated that he did not pose a flight risk or threat. However, the High Court remained unconvinced, holding that the seriousness of the offence and the broader circumstances outweighed these submissions .
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Delhi High Court’s decision once again brings into sharp focus the enduring questions surrounding power, accountability and justice in India. Custodial deaths represent one of the gravest failures of the justice system, where those meant to protect the law become its violators.
In cases like the Unnao tragedy, the harm extends far beyond a single act it creates ripples of fear, silences victims and erodes public trust. While the right to appeal and procedural fairness are cornerstones of democracy, they must be balanced against the lived realities of survivors, who often continue to battle threats, stigma and harassment long after verdicts are delivered.
At The Logical Indian, we believe justice must be empathetic, survivor-centric and uncompromising in cases of abuse of power. True justice is not merely about time served, but about reaffirming that no position or influence places anyone above the law.
