Unnao rape case: Two women lawyers challenge High Court's suspension of sentence of ex-MLA

New Delhi: Two women lawyers on Thursday approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court's order of December 23, granting bail to former UP MLA Kuldeep Senger in the 2017 Unnao rape case by suspending his sentence of life term, pending his appeal against the conviction.

Petitioners Anjali Patel and Pooja Shilpkar claimed the High Court granted relief to the expelled BJP MLA without considering the true facts of the case for which the trial court not only convicted him and awarded him the life imprisonment, but also made an observation that he must serve judicial custody till the rest of natural life.

This reflected the gravity and heinous nature of the offence, they contended.

"The High Court has committed a grave error in law as well as on facts in granting bail/suspension of sentence to the accused, despite his serious criminal antecedents and his established involvement in the heinous offences of rape upon the victim and murder of her father, thereby overlooking the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence and bail law,'' their plea said.   

It also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate the material evidence relied upon by the prosecution, which clearly demonstrated the barbarity and brutality of the accused, coupled with his demonstrated muscle power, financial influence and criminal propensity. This was evidenced from the fact that even while the victim’s father was under judicial custody, the accused orchestrated and executed the victim’s father's murder to silence the family.

The plea pointed out that the court, while considering the gravity of the matter and the imminent threat to the life and liberty of the victim and witnesses, had transferred the trial from Unnao, Uttar Pradesh to the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in a judicial acknowledgment of the accused’s influence, intimidation capacity and adverse impact on the justice delivery system.

It claimed, the High Court gravely erred in law and on facts in misinterpreting the statutory definition of “public servant” as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and other relevant penal provisions, while considering the bail application of the accused-respondent. The accused was a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) at the time of commission of the alleged heinous offence. 

"The HC's reasoning is not only contrary to the express legislative mandate but is also perverse, self contradictory, and incapable of being understood on any sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Such erroneous interpretation strikes at the root of the administration of criminal justice and undermines the statutory objective of curbing corruption and criminal misconduct by persons holding public office,'' it contended.