Unnao Rape Case: Sengar’s Interim Bail Plea Cited Health Issues; AIIMS Alerted CBI on Visitor Influx

The Delhi High Court has stayed Kuldeep Singh Sengar's sentence in the Unnao rape case pending appeal, after AIIMS medical board assessed his health conditions and suitability for discharge. The decision integrates medical findings with stricter bail conditions amid concerns about hospital crowding.

The Delhi High Court suspended expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s sentence in the Unnao rape case, pending his appeal. The court asked Sengar to execute a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh and provide three sureties of the same amount, while his conviction continues to face judicial scrutiny.

The case involves the kidnapping and rape of a minor in 2017, and a related case concerning the custodial death of the survivor’s father. Sengar’s appeal against conviction in that death case is also still before the Delhi High Court, which is examining both matters on the judicial record.

Delhi High Court Unnao rape case: medical history and AIIMS assessment

Before the latest order, Sengar had repeatedly cited medical issues when seeking temporary suspension of sentence. About a year earlier, the Delhi High Court granted Sengar nearly two weeks of interim suspension, based on health concerns. Later, Sengar moved another plea seeking a much longer five‑month suspension on similar medical grounds.

In support of those requests, Sengar presented a detailed medical report listing eight ailments. The report mentioned diabetes, hypertension, bronchial asthma, age‑related degenerative spine disease, cataract‑related eye problems, internal haemorrhoids, bilateral hydrocele, and anxiety. These conditions were recorded while Sengar stayed under treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, under specialist supervision.

Delhi High Court Unnao rape case: treatment details and procedures at AIIMS

At AIIMS, an eleven‑member medical board from different departments evaluated Sengar’s health. Doctors noted that diabetes and hypertension were under control with oral medication. Asthma was managed through inhalers. According to the board, spine‑related complaints required exercise, physiotherapy, and medicines, without any immediate need for major surgical intervention.

The AIIMS report recorded recent procedures on specific dates. Sengar underwent laser treatment for cataract‑related eye issues on 13 December 2024. A banding procedure for internal haemorrhoids took place on 16 December 2024. The documents also referred to complaints of scrotal pain and bleeding during defecation during that admission period.

Delhi High Court Unnao rape case: hospital concerns and security issues

After examining Sengar, the AIIMS medical board concluded that the condition was stable and fit for discharge. The report clearly stated that required interventions had been completed at AIIMS. It also said that future treatment could be managed on an outpatient basis at a local healthcare facility, with follow‑up as necessary.

During the same admission, AIIMS formally raised concerns about crowding around Sengar. In a written communication dated 13 December 2024, the Member Secretary of the Medical Board flagged an “unusually large” number of visitors. The letter stated that such heavy footfall disturbed routine medical care and disrupted normal hospital functioning.

AIIMS addressed that letter to the Director of the CBI, requesting stronger security arrangements. The hospital said visitor pressure was affecting staff and services in nearby areas. This document later became part of the material placed before the Delhi High Court, as judges considered the pattern of Sengar’s conduct during interim relief.

Delhi High Court Unnao rape case: victim counsel’s objections and court reasoning

The survivor’s counsel, Mehmood Pracha, relied on the AIIMS communication to oppose further bail extensions. Pracha argued that the crowd around Sengar showed a lack of discipline while on interim bail. Pracha reminded the court that an earlier order dated 20 December 2024 had clearly warned against any further extension of suspension.

According to the victim’s side, Sengar was using staggered medical procedures to keep seeking time. Counsel submitted that Sengar could not select treatment dates at convenience and then repeatedly move the court. The argument was that such behaviour risked turning medical care into a continuous ground for suspending sentence.

The Delhi High Court evaluated these submissions against the AIIMS medical opinion. Judges noted that the five‑month suspension requested by Sengar was disproportionate, given the board’s finding that Sengar was stable and ready for discharge. At the same time, the court acknowledged that surgical procedures for the eyes and haemorrhoids had taken place quite recently.

Balancing medical needs with concerns over discipline and repeated pleas, the court opted for a narrower relief. It granted only a one‑month extension of interim bail, strictly to allow recovery from the recent procedures. The court described this earlier relief as limited and conditional, based on specific medical records rather than an open‑ended suspension.

Against that background of earlier interim suspensions and AIIMS observations, the latest Delhi High Court order now keeps Sengar’s Unnao rape sentence on hold until the appeal is decided. The court’s directions combine strict financial conditions with past warnings on discipline, while the underlying convictions and related appeals remain under consideration.