Delhi HC Denies Suspension of Sentence Under Section 389 CrPC in Custodial Death Citing Gravity of Offence

Introduction

In a ruling that underscores the stringent standards for post-conviction bail in grave criminal matters, the Delhi High Court on January 19, 2026, dismissed an application by former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar seeking suspension of his 10-year sentence in the custodial death case linked to the infamous Unnao rape incident. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, presiding over Criminal Appeal No. 539/2020, emphasized the offence's severity, the appellant's criminal antecedents, and the absence of compelling new circumstances as key factors in denying relief. This decision comes amid Sengar's ongoing life imprisonment for raping a minor in the connected case, where a recent bail grant was stayed by the Supreme Court. The ruling reinforces judicial caution in balancing incarceration duration against public interest and victim safety in high-profile cases involving abuse of power and custodial violence.

The case, transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by the Supreme Court in 2019 for fair and expeditious trial, highlights systemic issues in handling politically influenced crimes. Sengar, convicted in March 2020 by the trial court at Tis Hazari, has been in custody since April 2018. The denial of suspension maintains his incarceration pending appeal, with the next hearing set for February 3, 2026. This development has drawn attention from legal circles, as it reiterates principles from Supreme Court precedents on Section 389 CrPC applications, particularly in offences under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Case Background

The Unnao rape case erupted in 2017, exposing allegations of sexual assault, political interference, and custodial brutality in Uttar Pradesh. The minor survivor, then 17 years old, accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a prominent BJP MLA from Unnao, of luring her to his residence on June 4, 2017, under the pretext of a job offer and subjecting her to repeated rape between June 11 and 20, 2017. She alleged being held captive, assaulted for days, and sold for ₹60,000 to another individual. Local police, allegedly under Sengar's influence, threatened the family and pressured the survivor to withdraw her complaint.

The case escalated tragically on April 3, 2018, when the survivor's father, Surender Singh @ Pappu Singh, and a co-worker traveled to Unnao for a court hearing related to the rape FIR. In broad daylight at village Makhi, they were brutally assaulted by Sengar and his associates, including his brother Atul Singh Sengar. The next day, Surender was falsely arrested under FIR No. 89/2018 at Makhi police station on fabricated charges of possessing illegal arms—a country-made pistol and four cartridges. He died in judicial custody on April 9, 2018, from multiple injuries sustained during the assault and alleged police brutality.

A second FIR (No. 90/2018) was filed by the deceased's wife, alleging the assault, attempted molestation of the minor daughters, and political pressure to shield the perpetrators. Both FIRs were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which re-registered them as RC No. 9(S)/2018 and RC No. 10(S)/2018. The CBI's investigation involved recording statements from independent witnesses, analyzing call detail records, and uncovering a conspiracy involving falsification of records and fabrication of evidence.

The Supreme Court's intervention in August 2019 via Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 01/2019 and related transfer petitions was pivotal. It shifted all four connected trials—rape, custodial death, attempt to murder (from a 2019 lorry accident that killed two aunts and injured the survivor and her lawyer), and other charges—to Delhi's Tis Hazari Courts. The apex court mandated day-to-day hearings to conclude within 45 days and ordered CRPF protection for the victim, her family, and lawyer, a measure still in place due to ongoing threat perceptions.

In December 2019, the trial court convicted Sengar of raping the minor under Section 376 IPC, Sections 5(c)/6 of the POCSO Act, and related charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment. For the custodial death, on March 4, 2020, he was convicted under Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, 304 Part II, and 120B IPC, plus Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. Sentencing on March 13, 2020, imposed a 10-year rigorous imprisonment term (with fines totaling over ₹10 lakh) for the lead charge under Section 304 Part II, alongside concurrent terms for others. The court noted no intention to murder but held the actions tantamount to culpable homicide, refusing leniency as the deceased was the family's "sole bread earner." Sengar's brother and five others received similar 10-year terms.

Sengar's appeals against both convictions are pending before the Delhi High Court. A prior suspension application in the custodial death case was rejected by a coordinate bench on June 7, 2024, citing the crime's gravity and societal impact. Recently, on December 23, 2025, the High Court suspended his rape sentence pending appeal, but the Supreme Court stayed it on December 29, 2025, following a CBI challenge.

The legal questions center on whether prolonged incarceration (nearly 7.5 years of the 10-year term) and good conduct justify suspending the sentence under Section 389(3) CrPC (now BNSS equivalents), or if the offence's nature, antecedents, and victim threats preclude relief.

Arguments Presented

Sengar's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Manish Vashisht, along with Aishwarya Sengar, Vedansh Vashisht, Swapan Singhal, Kanhaiya Singhal, Avantika Shankar, and Shatakshi Singh, mounted a multi-pronged defense focused on humanitarian and procedural grounds. They highlighted that Sengar has been in custody since April 13, 2018—over 7.5 years, more than three-quarters of the 10-year sentence—without adverse jail reports. Referencing his nominal roll, they argued this substantial incarceration, coupled with the appeal's uncertain timeline, risks rendering the appeal infructuous. Counsel noted four prior interim bails (including for his daughter's marriage) where Sengar complied fully, showing no misuse of liberty.

Addressing threat concerns, Vashisht contended no court has found Sengar directly threatening the victim or family post-conviction, and the CBI raised no such objections during hearings. He disputed the prosecution's reliance on call details involving Sengar's secretary, Santosh Mishra (not examined as a witness), and pointed to contradictions in witness statements and Sengar's absence from the assault site on April 3, 2018. Emphasizing Section 389 CrPC's discretionary nature, they urged suspension to prevent irreparable prejudice, arguing the trial court's findings (e.g., no direct assault role) warrant prima facie review.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj for the CBI, assisted by Ananya Shamshery, portrayed Sengar as the conspiracy's "central figure," convicted after thorough evidence appraisal including witness testimonies and call records. They stressed the offence's gravity—culpable homicide in a politically motivated assault on a rape witness—and its societal ramifications, arguing post-conviction bail standards are stricter than pre-trial.

Victim's counsel Mehmood Pracha, with Kshitij Singh and Kumail Abbas, vehemently opposed relief, linking the custodial death directly to the rape case where Sengar was convicted of assaulting the minor (the deceased's daughter). Pracha highlighted ongoing harassment, including social media defamation and Supreme Court applications to remove the family's CRPF protection, underscoring persistent threats from Sengar's influence. He invoked the June 2024 rejection, arguing no new facts justify reconsideration, and cautioned that release could intimidate witnesses and erode justice system trust. Pracha emphasized the court's role under Section 389 CrPC is limited to assessing conviction sustainability, not re-trial, and cited the trial court's refusal of leniency for eliminating the family's breadwinner.

Additional details from reports indicate protests erupted after the recent rape bail grant (later stayed), with the victim's mother demanding Sengar's hanging, amplifying public and legal scrutiny.

Legal Analysis

Justice Dudeja's reasoning meticulously applies Section 389 CrPC principles, distinguishing post-conviction suspension from pre-trial bail. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the court held that conviction dissolves innocence presumption, imposing a "more restrictive standard" ( Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary , (2023) 6 SCC 123). Key factors include offence gravity, evidence nature, convict antecedents, public confidence impact, and prosecutor inputs ( Atul Tripathi v. State of U.P. , (2014) 9 SCC 177).

The ruling dissects the crime's severity: Under Section 304 Part II IPC, the assault and false implication led to custodial death, intertwined with the POCSO/rape conviction (life term). Dudeja noted the Supreme Court's 2019 transfer and protection orders signal enduring threats, unmitigated by time. Sengar's antecedents—life sentence for minor rape—further weigh against relief, as does the June 2024 coordinate bench dismissal, which analyzed evidence without palpable error.

On delay, the court rejected prolonged incarceration (7.5 years) as standalone grounds, attributing part of the appeal lag to Sengar's multiple interim applications ( Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 842). This precedent clarifies suspension isn't automatic for delay in serious cases; merits dominate, preventing routine bail that undermines social security. Dudeja clarified judicial discretion under Section 389 requires "judicial mind" application, not mechanical incarceration focus—especially for 10-year+ sentences.

No precedents directly quashing similar convictions were cited, but the analysis invokes broader CrPC/BNSS frameworks, distinguishing culpable homicide (no murder intent) from lesser offences. The decision integrates CBI evidence (call records, witness statements) without re-appraisal, upholding trial findings of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. It balances victim rights under Article 21 (right to life, including protection from threats) against convict rights, prioritizing the former in politically sensitive cases.

This approach aligns with evolving jurisprudence on custodial deaths, emphasizing accountability for abuse of authority, and may influence future Section 389 applications in connected sexual violence cases.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts illuminating the court's stance:

• On suspension standards: "It is trite that suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is not a matter of right and the nature and gravity of the offence committed are vital considerations for deciding such application. The power to suspend execution of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised after applying judicial mind to the relevant circumstances."

• Regarding the conviction's sustainability: "The trial court after detailed appreciation of evidence reached the conclusion that the appellant was a key participant in the conspiracy and that the assault on the deceased, and the subsequent falsification of FIR, were part of that design. Those findings form the basis of the conviction of the appellant and cannot be set aside lightly at the stage of deciding application for suspension of sentence."

• Addressing delay and incarceration: "The Court is conscious that the appellant has suffered long incarceration of about 7.5 years and the appeal could not be heard since after the dismissal of the previous application but reason for such delay in hearing the appeals partly was that appellant filed multiple applications for interim suspension, extension of bail and regular suspension of sentence."

• Citing Shivani Tyagi : "The mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr. P.C. without referring to the relevant factors... Such an interpretation would also go against public interest and social security."

• Final weighing: "Having been convicted, the presumption of innocence is no more available to the appellant. No exceptional or compelling circumstance has been brought to the fore that would warrant suspension of sentence at this stage."

These observations, drawn verbatim, underscore the nuanced balance between mercy and justice.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court unequivocally dismissed the application: "No grounds are made out for grant relief. The application seeking suspension of sentence is dismissed." Justice Dudeja ordered the appeal listed for February 3, 2026, for expeditious merits hearing, directing a copy to the jail superintendent.

This decision perpetuates Sengar's custody, intertwining with his stayed rape bail, ensuring continuity until appeals resolve. Practically, it safeguards the victim from perceived threats, upholding CRPF protection and signaling zero tolerance for witness intimidation in high-stakes cases. For the legal fraternity, it clarifies Section 389 CrPC's application: incarceration alone insufficient in grave offences; courts must scrutinize merits, antecedents, and societal impact. Future cases involving custodial deaths or political crimes may cite this for denying suspension absent new evidence, potentially expediting appeals via prioritization.

Broader implications include reinforcing victim-centric justice under POCSO and IPC, deterring influence-peddling, and prompting reforms in custodial oversight. As the Unnao saga persists, this ruling affirms the judiciary's role in restoring public faith amid controversy, with appeals likely to test trial evidence further. Legal professionals monitoring #BailSuspension trends will note its alignment with Supreme Court directives, possibly influencing pending post-conviction bails nationwide.