The decision of the Delhi High Court to grant conditional bail to former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case has once again exposed the widening gap between what the law permits and what society perceives as justice. The order may be legally sound, but its consequences underline uncomfortable truths about delay, power, and survivor vulnerability in India&rsquo;s criminal justice system.
<h2 data-start="549" data-end="582">What the court actually did</h2>
First, the legal position needs clarity. Sengar has not been acquitted. His conviction and life sentence for the 2017 rape of a minor remain intact. The High Court has only suspended the sentence during the pendency of his appeal and granted him conditional bail.
Those conditions include remaining in Delhi, reporting regularly to the police, surrendering his passport, and staying at least five kilometres away from the survivor.
Under Indian law, such suspension of sentence is permissible. Courts are constitutionally obligated to ensure that a convict is not kept in prison indefinitely while appeals crawl through an overburdened system. The right to personal liberty and the principle that an appeal must have real meaning form the legal backbone of this decision.
<h2 data-start="1358" data-end="1399">A case that was never just one case</h2>
The Unnao matter is not a single crime but a chain of events spread across years.
In 2017, Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape of a minor. In 2018, he was convicted in connection with the custodial death of the survivor&rsquo;s father. In 2019, a suspicious road crash left the survivor critically injured and killed two of her relatives, deepening fears of witness intimidation. Alongside these were multiple allegations of conspiracy, threats, and misuse of influence.
Each case moved through courts at a different pace, under different laws, creating a fragmented legal reality where gravity did not always translate into continuous custody.
<h2 data-start="2075" data-end="2120">The loopholes that made bail inevitable</h2>
Delay as design flaw Criminal appeals in India routinely take years. Faced with this delay, courts are left with a stark choice: continue incarceration and risk violating constitutional liberty, or grant bail. Over time, delay itself has become the strongest argument for release, even in the most serious crimes.
Technical sentencing arithmetic Sentences imposed under different sections and laws are assessed independently. In Sengar&rsquo;s case, the High Court re-examined how provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were applied and how much time had already been served under specific counts. This legal recalibration allowed the court to justify suspension of sentence without reopening the question of guilt.
Power imbalance ignored by bail law Bail jurisprudence assumes parity between accused and survivor. It treats distance restrictions and police reporting as adequate safeguards. What it fails to capture is indirect influence, political reach, and histories of intimidation. These are real, but rarely provable in a bail hearing.
Survivor safety is secondary, not decisive Indian law does not treat survivor fear as a veto on bail. Protection is remedial, not determinative. Bail is granted first; safety is managed later. In high-profile cases, this sequencing matters.
No re-examination of facts At the stage of sentence suspension, courts do not revisit evidence, trauma, or the brutality of the crime. The inquiry is procedural. Once an appeal is admitted, severity alone does not bar bail.
<h2 data-start="3687" data-end="3728">Why the order is legally defensible</h2>
From a constitutional standpoint, the High Court&rsquo;s reasoning aligns with precedent. The judiciary is tasked with safeguarding liberty, preventing indefinite incarceration, and applying the law uniformly, even to the deeply unpopular. In that narrow legal sense, the decision stands on firm ground.
<h2 data-start="4028" data-end="4067">Why it still feels like a failure</h2>
Legality, however, does not translate into legitimacy.
For survivors, bail reopens trauma and reinforces fear. For society, it sharpens the belief that influence and endurance can outlast accountability. Each such order chips away at public trust, especially among women and marginalised communities who already approach the justice system with caution.
The fallout is visible. Faith in institutions erodes. Fear becomes normalised for survivors long after judgments are delivered. Public anger targets courts instead of the deeper failures of delay, vacancies, and weak protection frameworks. Most dangerously, victims watching from the sidelines begin to question whether reporting is worth the cost.
In high-profile cases, bail is no longer seen as a procedural order. It becomes a social signal, rightly or wrongly interpreted as a statement on whose safety the system prioritises. 
The uneasy balance between liberty and justice is also acknowledged by legal practitioners. According to advocate Prapti B. Bhatt,
<blockquote data-start="1760" data-end="2091">
&ldquo;The article incisively highlights the enduring tension between accused rights and societal interests. While the High Court&rsquo;s order is a well-reasoned one, this piece correctly shifts focus to the deeper systemic challenges within our criminal justice framework. This is effective journalism that asks the questions that matter.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
The comment reflects a growing consensus that procedural correctness alone cannot resolve the broader crisis of trust in the justice system.
<h2 data-start="4958" data-end="5002">How other democracies soften this blow</h2>
Other democracies face the same tension between liberty and safety, but manage it differently.
Bail decisions elsewhere are often informed by structured risk and survivor impact assessments that formally record fear, vulnerability, and safety concerns. Many systems provide case-long witness protection, including relocation or continuous security, rather than temporary measures. Faster appellate timelines reduce the need to rely on bail as a solution to delay. Conditional release is backed by strict monitoring and swift penalties for intimidation. Courts also invest in transparency, explaining bail decisions in clear, accessible language.
The result is not fewer bail orders, but fewer social ruptures when bail is granted.
<h2 data-start="5737" data-end="5762">The real fault line</h2>
The conflict is not between bail and justice. It is between procedure and lived reality.
India&rsquo;s bail jurisprudence is constitutionally correct, but socially incomplete. Until appeals move faster, survivor protection becomes permanent, and power imbalance is meaningfully acknowledged in bail law, decisions like this will continue to be legally right and socially devastating at the same time.

Why Bail in the Unnao Case Feels Like Injustice

How procedure, delay and power turned a lawful order into a social rupture

Why Bail in the Unnao Case Feels Like Injustice

How procedure, delay and power turned a lawful order into a social rupture

December 27, 2025 | 01:20 IST