A three-judge vacation bench led by CJI Surya Kant will hear CBI's appeal against suspension of life sentence granted to Kuldeep Sengar on December 29, 2025. Earlier, the CBI challenged the suspension of life sentence and bail to Sengar in the Unnao rape case in the Supreme Court. The decision was taken after studying the orders of a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the Unnao rape case of 2017, a CBI spokesperson said in a statement. It was decided to file an SLP before the Supreme Court at the earliest against the orders of the high court, which granted bail to Sengar after suspending his life sentence, the CBI said.
Sengar, however, will remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year term for the custodial death of the rape survivor's father. Sengar had filed an appeal against his life sentence, which was vehemently opposed by the CBI and the family of the victim before the high court.
“The CBI filed timely replies and written arguments in this matter. The family of the victim has also opposed the petition, citing safety and threats. The CBI will immediately challenge this order,” the CBI statement said.
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court suspended the jail term of expelled BJP leader Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the 2017 Unnao rape case, saying he has already served seven years and five months in prison.
Earlier in the day, the victim of the 2017 Unnao rape case, in which ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted, has approached the CBI seeking the registration of an FIR against the then-investigating officer for being “hand in glove” with the former legislator.
The woman also claimed that she and her family were facing threats from various quarters. The development comes amid growing disappointment in several quarters after the Delhi High Court granted conditional bail to Sengar and suspended his life sentence in the case.
In her complaint, the victim alleged that the investigating officer conducted the probe dishonestly, with mala fides, and in such a way that Senger and the other accused may get the benefits of “deliberate lapses and manipulation of facts introduced, and secure a favourable outcome”.
She alleged that the officer used forged school documents in the chargesheet, wherein she was shown as a student of a government school and her date of birth was also shown differently, whereas, in reality, she never took admission in that school.
The victim also claimed that the officer mentioned in the chargesheet that she was using the mobile phone of a woman named Heera Singh, even though she never used that phone.
