The Supreme Court has permitted the Unnao rape victim to implead herself in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) petition contesting the bail granted to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, affirming her statutory right to participate in proceedings that directly impact her. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made this allowance on Monday, drawing from the precedent in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, which mandates hearing survivors in bail-related matters to uphold victim-centric justice.

However, the Court dismissed an intervention application by the survivor’s young cousin—the minor son of her paternal uncle—citing threats to his safety should Sengar be released. The bench clarified that such collateral family members must pursue independent remedies, like a protection petition before the High Court under Article 226, rather than piggybacking on the CBI’s SLP. “The applicant ought to avail an independent remedy instead of seeking to intervene in CBI’s petition,” the order noted, while reserving his liberty to approach lower forums for safeguards.

The proceedings were deferred as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was unavailable, though Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing Sengar, pressed for an early hearing, arguing that the High Court’s bail order—stayed by the apex court in December 2025—has been effectively nullified, curtailing his client’s liberty. CJI Kant assured a prompt listing, underscoring the case’s sensitivity.

This development revives scrutiny over Sengar’s 2019 conviction by a CBI special court for the 2017 rape of a minor in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, which ignited national outrage due to alleged political interference and family harassment. Sengar, once a powerful BJP legislator, received life imprisonment under POCSO Act provisions and IPC Section 376(2). He is concurrently serving a 10-year term for the 2018 custodial death of the survivor’s father, who was falsely implicated in an arms case.

In December 2025, the Delhi High Court suspended his rape sentence and granted bail pending appeal, ruling that aggravated penalties under POCSO Section 5(c) and IPC 376(2)—which enhance punishment for public servants abusing authority—did not apply, as an MLA does not qualify as a “public servant” under Section 21 IPC. The CBI contests this as a flawed, hyper-technical reading that undermines POCSO’s child-protection ethos, urging a purposive interpretation to deter authority-driven abuses.

The agency argues that suspending a life term in heinous minor rape cases is exceptional, not routine, and the High Court erred by over-relying on incarceration duration without weighing the offence’s gravity or public interest. With the survivor’s impleadment, the petition gains a vital voice, potentially influencing the final outcome on whether Sengar’s bail endures.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar | SLP(Crl.) No. 21367/2025