“Only a Small Breathing Space, Not Justice”: Survivor’s Lawyer After Supreme Court Stays Kuldeep Sengar’s Bail

Delhi: The Supreme Court has stepped in to halt the bail granted to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, temporarily blocking his release from prison. The top court stayed the Delhi High Court’s order that had suspended Sengar’s life sentence, following a challenge raised against the relief granted to the convicted politician.

With the Supreme Court’s intervention, Sengar will continue to remain in jail until the matter is examined in detail. The court has also allowed time for the concerned parties to submit further responses, making it clear that no immediate relief will be extended to him.

Reacting sharply to the development, senior advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents the survivor, warned against calling the stay a legal victory. Speaking to the media, Pracha said the order offers only limited relief to the survivor and her family, who have faced years of fear, pressure and insecurity.

“This is just a small breathing space for the victim. It should not be projected as justice or closure,” Pracha said, adding that the struggle for accountability is far from over.

The lawyer alleged that Sengar continues to benefit from the support of influential forces. He claimed the case reflects the presence of a wider network protecting powerful accused individuals, which he described as an “Indian Epstein-type ecosystem.” Pracha also criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that the agency failed to place the strongest arguments before the court while opposing bail.

According to Pracha, the court has not yet examined the case on its full merits. “What has been argued so far is only the tip of the iceberg,” he said, insisting that there is extensive evidence on record supporting the survivor’s case.

He further raised concerns about the safety of the survivor, pointing to past incidents linked to the case, including the killing of her father and attacks on relatives and legal associates. Pracha argued that these serious threats were not given adequate weight when bail was granted earlier.