Introduction:

In proceedings arising from the brutal events that followed the sexual assault of a minor girl in Unnao, the Delhi High Court was called upon to examine a plea seeking suspension of a ten year sentence awarded in connection with the custodial death of the victim’s father, and the case was placed before Justice Ravinder Dudeja who considered the application filed by Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a former legislator already serving life imprisonment in the rape case, and the Court revisited the disturbing factual background where in April 2018 the victim’s family had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing and on the same day the victim’s father was attacked in broad daylight by accused persons, followed by his arrest the next day by the police on allegations of illegal possession of arms, after which he succumbed to multiple injuries while in custody, raising serious questions about abuse of power and criminal conspiracy, and owing to the gravity of the matter and concerns about fairness of investigation, the Supreme Court in August 2019 transferred the trial of five connected cases from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, after which Sengar was convicted in December 2019 for the offence of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment, and later in March 2020 he was also held guilty of conspiring in the death of the victim’s father, leading to an additional sentence of ten years, and in June 2024 his first plea seeking suspension of sentence in the custodial death case was rejected by the High Court, making the present application his second attempt to secure temporary liberty pending appeal.

Arguments:

On behalf of the applicant it was argued that he had already undergone long incarceration of approximately seven and a half years and that continued imprisonment during the pendency of appeal amounted to excessive hardship, and it was submitted that suspension of sentence is a recognized legal remedy when an appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, and that the applicant was entitled to parity in light of the fact that a division bench of the High Court had recently suspended his sentence in the rape case, though that order was later stayed by the Supreme Court, and it was urged that prolonged custody without final adjudication of appeal undermines the right to personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, and that there were no compelling reasons to deny suspension when the appeal itself was pending and the applicant had already spent several years behind bars, on the other hand the prosecution strongly opposed the plea, contending that the applicant had serious criminal antecedents and was not an ordinary convict but a person convicted in two extremely grave offences involving sexual violence and custodial death, and it was submitted that the custodial death was not an isolated incident but part of a larger conspiracy intended to intimidate and silence the victim’s family, and therefore granting suspension of sentence would send a wrong message and undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, and the prosecution further argued that the delay in hearing of the appeal could not be used as a ground for bail when such delay was partly attributable to the applicant himself who had filed multiple applications seeking suspension of sentence and other reliefs, thereby contributing to procedural prolongation, and it was also pointed out that there was no new circumstance or change in facts since the earlier rejection of his plea in June 2024 which could justify reconsideration of the same relief, and that repetitive applications without fresh grounds amounted to abuse of process of law. Court’s

Judgment:

After examining the submissions and the record, Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the plea for suspension of sentence, holding that there was no subsequent development or fresh circumstance warranting interference with the earlier order, and the Court noted that although it was conscious of the long period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the seriousness of the offences and his criminal background could not be ignored, particularly when he stood convicted not only for rape but also for conspiring in a custodial death which strikes at the very heart of rule of law, and the Court observed that the appeal could not be heard expeditiously due to multiple factors including the filing of repeated applications by the applicant himself, and therefore he could not take advantage of delays partly caused by his own litigation strategy, and Justice Dudeja emphasized that suspension of sentence is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief that must be exercised cautiously in cases involving grave crimes, especially where the conduct of the accused reflects abuse of power and intimidation of victims, and the Court further clarified that the appropriate course was to ensure that the appeal is heard on merits at the earliest rather than granting interim liberty in a case carrying strong societal impact, and therefore the plea was rejected with an observation that the appeal itself should be listed for expeditious hearing, while also taking note of the fact that though a division bench had earlier suspended the sentence in the rape case, that order had already been stayed by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the seriousness with which higher courts were treating the matter, and thus the High Court declined to grant any interim relief in the custodial death case and upheld the continued operation of the ten year sentence.