'When the accused has a past record demonstrating unprecedented and unmatched criminality and perversion, I believe the interests of justice would have been better served if such a person remained behind bars.'
In an interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, retired Uttar Pradesh director general of police Dr Vikram Singh offers an assessment of the Delhi high court order granting conditional bail to convicted Unnao rape case accused and former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar.
Dr Singh's concern is rooted in the long and troubling history of the Unnao case, which began with the rape of a 17-year-old girl in June 2017. The survivor had alleged in a letter to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath that she was raped at Sengar's residence while seeking his help for employment.
In April 2018, the survivor's father was arrested after being allegedly assaulted by Sengar's supporters; he later died from his injuries.
Days earlier, the survivor had attempted self-immolation outside Adityanath's residence.
It was this climate of fear and alleged misuse of political influence that prompted the then Chief Justice of India to transfer all related cases out of Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi, ordering day-to-day trials to safeguard both evidence and the survivor.
Sengar was ultimately convicted of rape in December 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a Rs 25 lakh fine. He was also convicted in the custodial death of the survivor's father and sentenced to an additional 10 years in prison.
Against this backdrop, Dr Singh says the Delhi high court's December 23, 2025 order -- suspending the life sentence and granting conditional bail -- raises troubling questions about victim protection, even though Sengar remains in custody due to the separate custodial death conviction.
"She (the victim) does not stand the ghost of a chance against Kuldeep Singh Sengar," notes Dr Singh. "If he actually comes out of jail and if Kuldeep Singh decides to harm her, I would be very surprised if she remains unharmed."
"You have to be absolutely clear about who the victim is, who the aggressor is, and who is aggrieved. What is the might of the aggressor compared to the might of the aggrieved?" Dr Singh asks.
Your reaction to the Delhi high court order suspending Kuldeep Singh Sengar's life imprisonment...
I am surprised and disappointed. I have known individuals (alleged criminals) suffering from extreme medical conditions and terminal illnesses who have not been granted any relief -- and rightfully so.
When one is accused of such heinous crimes (like Sengar), public interest must take precedence over all other considerations.
With the greatest respect to the honourable orders passed by the court, we are in no position to contest them. However, my opinion is that we need to appeal and ensure that a predator of the magnitude of Kuldeep Singh Sengar is not released on bail. His past record demonstrates that he is a serial offender.
Under these circumstances, the (Supreme) Court in their wisdom transferred the trial to Delhi to be disposed of on a priority basis.
What interest of justice has been served by releasing a compulsive, depraved person? It would be better for society that he remains behind bars.
I would strongly advocate that the government should oppose this bail order and have it cancelled so that he is returned to custody.
When the Supreme Court moved this case out of Uttar Pradesh fearing misuse of political and money power, how does the survivor feel safe when the same person is now given conditional freedom?
The accused does have rights. However, when the accused has a past record demonstrating unprecedented and unmatched criminality and perversion, I believe the interests of justice would have been better served if such a person remained behind bars.
The interests of the survivor, and her family -- as victims -- must take precedence over every other consideration. Therefore, the survivor has every reason to be petrified and feel profoundly insecure.
Does this bail order weaken the Supreme Court's message that victim protection encompasses not just legal safeguards but also emotional, physical, and psychological safety?
I am a disciplined person and do not question orders passed by any court. However, I genuinely feel that there is a contradiction between the orders.
The Supreme Court considered everything in totality when it transferred the case, while the order passed by the honourable Delhi high court perhaps contradicts the spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment.
How does one understand the term 'conditional bail' in legal jurisprudence? If bail conditions merely stipulate no contact and maintaining distance, how is a survivor protected from indirect pressure?
All bail is conditional. Conditional bail is granted to individuals who are law-abiding. Would you, for a moment, believe that such a serial offender (like Sengar) and pervert will observe a single condition he is expected to follow?
I would not believe it, and I would not wager even a rupee that he will abide by the bail conditions. He will be the first person to breach all the conditions.
The Delhi high court has stated that his bail will be immediately cancelled if he violates the conditions. But how can such bail conditions deter alleged criminals from violating them? Can anybody not violate them?
Anybody can violate them. You do not have to violate them personally -- you have a network. You can go to Nepal, you can go to Dubai, you can do anything and let your henchmen carry out the work.
The very fact that a strongman is physically present in his area sends a dangerous signal: 'Look, I am out. How long can prison keep me behind bars?' That is the message that will resonate. His henchmen will do the dirty work, and the cat's paw will be somebody else.
He will not break a single law himself. He will get himself photographed reciting the Hanuman Chalisa, performing prayers and puja, while others do the dirty work.
If somebody were to intimidate or threaten the survivor, whose responsibility is it to prove that threats were made by the accused?
The implications and conclusions are obvious. It is Sengar and Sengar alone who will be held responsible, whether he committed the act himself or it was somebody else who, out of loyalty, did it on his behalf.
The bottom line is that Kuldeep Singh should be held responsible for any misdemeanour or any threat to the survivor or her family.
As per law, the onus falls on the complainant to prove that threats were made.
The complainant is already a victim. Given her economic background -- she comes from an impoverished family -- or irrespective of that, how justified is it to place the onus of proof on the complainant?
There is no comparison. She has no comparison to the money, muscle power, and political power of Kuldeep Singh Sengar. It is a profoundly unequal comparison. The comparison itself is odious and absurd.
She does not stand the ghost of a chance against Kuldeep Singh Sengar. If he actually comes out of jail and if Kuldeep Singh decides to harm her, I would be very surprised if she remains unharmed.
In a case with a documented history of intimidation and the custodial death of the victim's father, should courts apply a stricter standard before suspending a life sentence, let alone granting bail?
You have to be absolutely clear about who the victim is, who the aggressor is, and who is aggrieved. What is the might of the aggressor compared to the might of the aggrieved?
In totality, I feel that in this case, Kuldeep Singh Sengar does not deserve any mercy whatsoever.
My advice to the police would be to maintain a close watch on him, his activities, and those of his henchmen and gang.
In any case, you were disgraced by the serial offences that took place, and you did not cover yourselves with glory. This is one occasion when you cannot afford another stain on the uniform.
Don't such bail orders place intense pressure on victims? Even though Kuldeep Singh Sengar remains incarcerated in another case concerning the custodial death of the victim's father, doesn't granting bail in this case signal to the survivor that her safety is only temporary?
The psychological pressure, mental trauma, and sense of insecurity -- I can well understand that by now, they would be nervous wrecks. The news itself is so shattering that even somebody like myself did not anticipate that he would obtain bail so quickly.
The fact that he has obtained bail, and you can understand the trauma of the survivor knowing that he is a serial offender -- the mental anguish, torture, and insecurity that she and her family must be experiencing. I feel profoundly sorry for the survivor and her family.
Isn't this bail order then a debate not only about the legal rights of both the victim and the accused but also about whether the system truly protects the survivor from fear, psychological trauma, and physical danger?
Not only these questions, but other profound questions speak volumes about the criminal justice system.
First, there is the delay.
Second, the non-registration of the First Information Report.
Third, after Herculean efforts, the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Fourth, being convicted after the intervention of the highest court. Then, somebody short-circuits the entire system.
What about victimology? What about victim rehabilitation? What about the rights of the victim? These questions must be addressed by the judiciary today, lest we conclude that there is no justice for the victim and the survivor.
What are your expectations from the Supreme Court now given that the victim has made it known that she will challenge Sengar's bail order and suspension of life imprisonment?
My complete sympathy lies with the victim. I am confident that the Supreme Court will set aside the bail order. I am certain of that.
© 2026