Unnao rape case: Delhi HC modifies order, reduces interim bail period of Kuldeep Sengar

The Delhi High Court on Friday reduced the duration of interim bail of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar to attend his daughter's marriage.

The Delhi High Court on Friday reduced the duration of interim bail of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar to attend his daughter's marriage. On January 16, 2023, the Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Sengar from January 27 to February 10 to attend his daughter's marriage and related functions.

The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba on Friday modified its earlier order, after the victim in the Unnao Rape case moved a plea for recalling its order. Victim through Advocate Mahmood Pracha had submitted that after the passing of the above interim bail order, the Applicant/victim has been receiving information that the Appellant/ Sengar is going to harm her and her family after being released from prison.

While modifying the earlier order, the court noted that there are two main functions on Jan 30th (Tilak) at Gorakhpur and the wedding on February 8 at Lucknow. According to the modified order, Sengar gets interim bail from Jan 27 to Jan 30 to attend Tilak Ceremony, then he'll surrender to the police.

"And on Feb 6, 2023, he shall be released again to attend his daughter's marriage scheduled for Feb 8 and surrender back to the Police on Feb 10, 2023," the court said in its fresh order. Sengar is a convict and was awarded a life sentence for raping a minor in Unnao in 2017. He was also convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in the case of custodial death of the father of the victim of the rape case.

He was granted interim bail in this matter for his daughter's wedding. Sengar's appeal against the conviction and sentence is pending before the High Court. His plea seeking regular bail is also under consideration before the High Court.

Victim's plea alleged that in the present case, the Appellant/Sengar had concealed, and the CBI had also failed to highlight the fact, that the Appellant stands convicted in a case which pertains to the custodial death of the father of the Applicant at the behest of the Appellant. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)