New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the plea of expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar, seeking suspension of his sentence in connection with the custodial death of the father of the Unnao rape victim. The case, which has drawn national attention due to its grave circumstances, involves serious allegations of custodial misconduct, assault, and lapses in police accountability.

Background of the Case

The custodial death incident occurred in 2018, when the father of the Unnao rape survivor was allegedly assaulted by Sengar’s aides while accompanying him to attend a hearing in the rape case. Following the assault, the father was reportedly taken into police custody, where he sustained multiple injuries and later died under questionable circumstances. Authorities alleged that he was also found in possession of illegal arms, but the death raised serious concerns about custodial oversight and the conduct of police officers.

In March 2020, a trial court convicted seven individuals, including Kuldeep Singh Sengar, his brother Jaideep Singh Sengar, and policemen Ashok Singh Bhadauria and KP Singh, on charges ranging from culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 of IPC), criminal conspiracy (120B IPC), wrongful restraint (341 IPC), and voluntarily causing hurt (323 IPC). The policemen were additionally convicted for registering a false complaint against the victim’s father and assaulting him while in judicial custody. All convicted individuals, including Sengar, were sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The trial court underscored the severity of the offence, noting that no leniency could be shown in the killing of a family’s sole breadwinner, emphasizing the social and moral responsibility of the judiciary to uphold justice.

Sengar’s Plea and Court’s Observations

Sengar, who had already undergone 7.5 years of imprisonment, filed a plea before the Delhi High Court seeking suspension of his sentence while his appeal against the March 2020 trial court order was pending. His plea argued that the long duration of incarceration warranted temporary relief, particularly as his appeal had not been taken up for hearing for a considerable period.

However, the bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected Sengar’s plea. The court observed that the delay in hearing his appeal was primarily attributable to Sengar himself, noting that he had filed multiple applications, including requests for interim bail, extension of interim bail, and suspension of sentence, which repeatedly postponed the hearing of his appeal.

“The purpose would be served if the appeal is heard on the merits,” the court said, emphasizing that the pendency of procedural applications cannot justify suspension of the sentence. The court further remarked that considering the statutory framework, judicial principles governing sentence suspension, and the antecedents of the appellant, Sengar’s application was dismissed in its entirety.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

Earlier, the Supreme Court of India, on December 29, 2025, had stayed the Delhi High Court’s December 23 ordersuspending Sengar’s sentence in a related rape case. This move highlighted the ongoing judicial scrutiny surrounding Sengar’s legal proceedings and ensured that the suspension of his sentence in the custodial death and rape cases did not take effect prematurely.

Sengar’s appeal against the March 2020 trial court ruling is scheduled to be heard on April 3, 2026, which will provide an opportunity for the higher court to examine the merits of his appeal, assess the trial court’s findings, and determine whether any modifications to the sentence are warranted.

Judicial Reasoning and Broader Implications

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal underscores several key points regarding sentence suspension and judicial accountability:

• Temporary relief or suspension of sentence is not an automatic right, even if the appellant has served a significant portion of the term.
• Repeated filing of procedural applications cannot be used to delay justice or secure undue leniency.
• In cases involving custodial deaths and serious criminal offenses, courts exercise caution in granting suspension, ensuring that public interest and social justice are not compromised.

By rejecting Sengar’s plea, the court emphasized that the pendency of appeals does not override the need to uphold the trial court’s order, particularly when the conviction arises from crimes of grave societal impact. The judgment also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of victims and their families, maintaining public faith in the criminal justice system.

Status of Related Cases

Kuldeep Singh Sengar has been convicted in multiple cases, including the Unnao rape case and the custodial death of the victim’s father. The Supreme Court’s earlier stay of the High Court’s suspension order in the rape case ensures that Sengar continues to serve his sentence while appeals are pending.

The case has significant political and social ramifications, given Sengar’s former role as a BJP leader and the widespread attention it has received across media platforms. It continues to serve as a landmark instance in highlighting custodial accountability, the protection of victims, and the role of the judiciary in maintaining public trust.

Next Steps

The legal focus now shifts to April 3, 2026, when the Delhi High Court will hear Sengar’s appeal against the trial court conviction. Until then, Sengar remains incarcerated, and the courts are expected to closely examine both the trial record and the procedural history to ensure a fair and just outcome.

The dismissal of his plea also signals a judicial message against attempts to exploit procedural delays for personal advantage, reinforcing that the courts prioritize justice for victims and adherence to the law over tactical litigation maneuvers.

---