The Delhi High Co”We discover that there are significant legal issues. Send out a notice. Generally speaking, this court shouldn’t stay a TC/HC order that has released a felon or undertrial on bond without first hearing from them. However, the respondent is in detention after being found guilty and punished in another matter under s.304 Part 2 IPC.
In unusual circumstances, we continue to operate under the contested order. The contested order will not allow the respondent to be released from custody.
The victim is legally entitled to submit a separate SLP. This Court does not need to grant her freedom. The SC Legal Service Committee will provide free legal aid if she needs it. The Court ruled, “She may also file her appeal through her own counsel.”urt’s order granting Kuldeep Sengar bail in the Unnao rape case is stayed by the Supreme Court.
Court Directives
Today, the Supreme Court granted former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar bail while he appealed his conviction in the Unnao rape case and stayed the Delhi High Court’s ruling postponing his sentence.
While issuing notice on pleas against the Delhi High Court ruling that halted Sengar’s sentence and released him on bail while his appeal against conviction was pending, a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice AG Masih issued the order.
Two applications, one from the CBI and the other from attorneys Anjale Patel and Pooja Shilpkar contesting the Delhi High Court’s ruling, were confiscated from the bench. It gave Sengar notice of the pleas while delaying the contested ruling. I
In his appearance on behalf of the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court erred in concluding that Sengar was not eligible for the POCSO Act’s aggravated crime provisions since he was not a public official.
He maintained that penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault are the two main categories of offenses under the POCSO Act, and that aggravation occurs when the perpetrator has a position of power over the victim.
Mehta argued that since the POCSO Act does not define the phrase “public servant,” it must be interpreted contextually. According to him, a person in a position of authority over children would be considered a public servant for the purposes of POCSO, and abuse of that position would be subject to the aggravated offense provisions. He maintained that Sengar obviously exerted such authority because he was a strong local MLA at the time.
“The POCSO Act will take precedence. This criminal was also found guilty of killing the survivor’s father and several other others. He is still inside and has not been allowed to leave.I implore your lordships to maintain the order. “We have to answer to the fifteen-year-old child,” he declared.
The Chief Justice questioned whether the CBI’s argument was that once the victim is a minor, being a public worker is no longer relevant. In response, the Solicitor General stated that aggravation relies on the circumstances, such as abuse of dominance, and that penetrative sexual assault on a child is an offense under POCSO in and of itself. He argued that subsequent changes that strengthen penalty do not violate Article 20 of the Constitution since they do not establish new offenses.
On behalf of Sengar, Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and N Hariharan challenged the CBI’s arguments, claiming that an MLA cannot be considered a public servant for the purposes of serious offenses under POCSO. They argued that the IPC has its own system for defining public officials and that a penal code cannot import definitions from another statute unless the law specifically permits it.
Additionally, they argued that Section 376(1) IPC applied to the charge that was presented and addressed throughout the trial. The exclusion of MPs and MLAs from the concept of public servant, however, raised concerns for the CJI. “If this interpretation is accepted, a constable or patwari will be public servant but MLA/MP will not be and get exempted” , he stated.