3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Mar 10, 2026 04:22 AM IST
The Supreme Court Monday permitted the survivor in the Unnao rape case to become a party in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal challenging the bail granted to ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the case.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the impleadment application filed by the survivor, observing that she has a right to be heard in light of the judgment in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
In its April 18, 2022, order in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, the SC had held that a victim in a criminal case “has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence”. “Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.”
On Monday, however, the apex court refused to entertain an application by the survivor’s cousin seeking to intervene in the proceedings. The bench asked the minor boy, who contended that granting bail to Sengar would jeopardise his life and liberty, to approach the High Court if so advised.
The bench adjourned the hearing as the CBI counsel was not available, and said it will fix a date for the final hearing.
The applications came up as the bench took up for hearing the Central probe agency’s appeal against the December 23, 2025, order of the Delhi High Court suspending the life sentence of Sengar and granting him bail in the rape case.
On December 29, the Supreme Court stayed the HC order, saying there are “various substantial questions of law which arise for consideration”.
Story continues below this ad
Challenging the Delhi High Court order, CBI contended that the HC “failed to consider that a sitting MLA (he was MLA when the crime was committed), by virtue of holding a constitutional office, is vested with public trust and authority over the electorate, and that such a position carries heightened responsibility arising from duties owed to the State and society”.
CBI said the HC “erred in law by failing to adopt a purposive interpretation that advances the object and intent of the Pocso Act, a special victim-centric legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences”.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
