Should Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

Should  Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

(By S.N. VERMA)

The recent public outrage and protests over the grant of bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar once again reveal a deep and recurring misunderstanding of criminal jurisprudence in India. The narrative being pushed—largely through headlines, social media posts and political rhetoric—suggests that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that either the judiciary or the government must be held responsible. A calm examination of law, however, shows that this outrage is misdirected, legally unfounded, and driven more by emotion and perception than by principle.

Suspension of Sentence and  not Acquittal

At the outset, it must be clearly understood that Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s conviction has not been set aside or diluted. What has been granted is suspension of sentence pending appeal, a power expressly conferred on appellate courts under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Suspension of sentence merely means that the execution of punishment is kept in abeyance during pendency of the appeal. The finding of guilt remains fully intact. In law, Sengar continues to be a convicted person, and the stigma and legal consequences of conviction persist. This distinction—between suspension of sentence and suspension of conviction—is crucial, yet is often conveniently ignored in public discourse.

Bail Is a Consequence of Suspension of Sentence

Once a sentence is suspended, continued incarceration has no legal basis, and therefore release on bail is a natural and routine consequence. This is not a concession reserved for the powerful; it is a settled principle applied daily across the country—even in cases involving heinous offences such as murder, rape, and terrorism, provided judicial parameters are satisfied.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that:

Appeals take years to be finally decided,

It would be unjust to keep a person incarcerated for the entire period if the appeal has been admitted,

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed merely to appease public sentiment.

Thus, grant of bail following suspension of sentence is not an exception—it is the rule.

Presumption of Innocence Till Finality

Another foundational principle of criminal law is that a conviction does not attain finality until all statutory appeals are exhausted. This is not a loophole; it is the very essence of due process.

Sengar, like any other convict, is entitled to:

Challenge his conviction before higher courts,

Seek suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal,

Be treated in accordance with established jurisprudence, not public anger.

This does not trivialize the crime or diminish its seriousness. It only reflects the civilised legal principle that no one should be made to suffer irreversible punishment until the judicial process reaches its lawful conclusion.

Judiciary Is Independent; Government Has No Role

Blaming the Government for Sengar’s release on bail reflects either ignorance of constitutional structure or deliberate political distortion. 

In India:

Judiciary is independent,

Decisions on suspension of sentence and bail are taken solely by courts,

The Executive has no authority to interfere, influence, or overrule judicial orders.

To expect the Government to “stop bail” is to demand an unconstitutional act. Ironically, such demands, if accepted, would amount to erosion of judicial independence—the very danger that protesters otherwise claim to resist.

Emotion, Politics, and Public Perception

The outrage surrounding this case appears to stem from three sources:

Moral revulsion against the crime, which is understandable;

Media simplification, where “bail” is equated with “freedom” or “exoneration”;

Political opportunism, where legal processes are projected as administrative failures.

However, courts do not—and cannot—function on outrage. Law must remain principled, even when the accused is unpopular or the offence is horrific.

The Final Outcome Is Yet to Come

It bears emphasis that if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds Sengar’s conviction, the suspension of sentence will automatically come to an end, and he will return to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. The present relief does not erase that possibility; it merely postpones incarceration until the appellate process is complete.

Conclusion:

In sum, the bail granted to Kuldeep Singh Sengar:

Is firmly rooted in statutory law and constitutional principles,

Reflects normal appellate jurisprudence, not preferential treatment,

Cannot be attributed to executive action or governmental indulgence.

The protests blaming the Government or questioning the judiciary are therefore legally misplaced. They are driven either by political motives, heightened emotion, or misunderstanding of criminal procedure. A mature democracy must distinguish between condemning a crime and undermining the rule of law.

Justice must not only be done, but it must also be done according to law—not according to the loudness of public outcry.

‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh! Why did we create Bangladesh?

 “‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh”! Why did we create Bangladesh?

By S.N. VERMA

More than five decades after the birth of Bangladesh, an uncomfortable question is increasingly being asked in India: has the nation we helped create forgotten the circumstances of its own liberation?

In 1971, India did not merely support Bangladesh diplomatically. It opened its borders to nearly ten million refugees, bore enormous economic and social costs, and ultimately went to war to end one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 20th century. Indian soldiers fought and died to liberate a people subjected to mass atrocities by the Pakistani Army. The surrender of over 90,000 Pakistani troops in Dhaka remains one of the most decisive moments in modern military history.

What is often forgotten—particularly by those who did not live through that era—is the extraordinary public contribution made by ordinary Indians. During the 1970s, citizens willingly paid additional amounts on daily necessities to support Bangladesh. Bus commuters paid extra fares; cinema-goers paid a surcharge on tickets; collections were organised across towns and villages under the Bangladesh Relief Fund. This was not state coercion—it was popular empathy. An entire generation contributed, modestly but consistently, to help a neighbour survive and rebuild.

Against this historical backdrop, recent developments in Bangladesh are deeply troubling.

There has been a visible rise in hostility towards India in public discourse, street protests, and symbolic acts that target India’s role in the Liberation War. Even more disturbing are reports of violence against minorities, particularly Hindus, and the apparent indifference—or worse, inadequacy—of state institutions in preventing such incidents. The killing of individuals like Dipu Chandra Das, widely reported in the media, has raised serious concerns about law enforcement, rule of law, and minority protection.

No democracy can claim moral legitimacy while failing to protect its vulnerable citizens.

Equally concerning is the attempt to rewrite or dilute the history of 1971, portraying India not as a liberator but as an adversary. This is not merely a diplomatic irritant; it is a profound betrayal of historical truth. Nations are free to chart independent foreign policies, but independence does not require amnesia.

India did not intervene in 1971 for territorial gain or political domination. It intervened because mass killings, sexual violence, and ethnic cleansing were unfolding on its doorstep—and because global powers chose silence. To now see sections of Bangladeshi society treat India as an enemy raises a legitimate question: what happened to gratitude, memory, and moral continuity?

This is not an indictment of every Bangladeshi citizen. It is a critique of prevailing political narratives, selective outrage, and a growing intolerance that threatens Bangladesh’s own founding ideals—secularism, pluralism, and respect for human dignity.

Bangladesh was once cited as a model of economic resilience and social progress in South Asia. That promise is now under strain. Political instability, suppression of dissent, attacks on minorities, and excessive external influence risk pushing the country down a path that its founders never intended.

History is unforgiving to nations that erase their own origins.

India will remain a responsible neighbour. But friendship cannot be sustained on denial and hostility. If Bangladesh continues to distance itself from the values and sacrifices that gave it birth, the question will only grow louder—not in anger, but in sorrow:

Why did we create Bangladesh, if its own conscience refuses to remember?

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

(By S. N. Verma)

In recent weeks, Indian social media platforms witnessed the rapid circulation of a claim alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name appeared in the so-called “Epstein Files.” The assertion was presented as a serious insinuation, framed to suggest impropriety by association. However, when the relevant material became publicly accessible and subject to verification, no such reference to the Prime Minister was found in any incriminating or questionable context.

The episode merits attention not because the claim was true—it was not—but because of the manner in which the narrative was constructed, amplified, and defended even after its factual foundation collapsed.

Manufacturing a Narrative

A noticeable aspect of the campaign was the striking uniformity of content across multiple platforms. Similar phrasing, identical talking points, and synchronized timing appeared in videos, posts, and commentaries circulated by a set of commentators and journalists. Some of the content went beyond reporting and ventured into speculative reasoning.

One particularly troubling argument suggested that the absence of the Prime Minister’s name itself demonstrated that it had allegedly been “removed,” thereby converting lack of evidence into supposed proof. Such logic is inherently circular and falls short of the standards of evidence-based journalism. In effect, it renders the claim immune to falsification—presence would be guilt, and absence would also be guilt.

Political Echo Chambers

Following the initial dissemination of the claim, political actors and party-affiliated digital platforms began circulating substantially similar narratives. The overlap between journalistic commentary and political amplification led to public debate over whether this convergence was organic or coordinated.

It is important to state with precision that coordination is alleged, not established as fact. Nonetheless, the speed and uniformity with which the narrative moved from commentary to political echo chambers raised legitimate questions about editorial independence and narrative alignment.

The Role of Advocacy Networks

Public discussion also turned toward international seminars and advocacy platforms that host journalists and opinion-makers for discussions on media and democracy. Such exchanges are neither unusual nor inherently improper. Journalists frequently participate in global forums, workshops, and fellowships.

However, critics have pointed out that when participants from such events subsequently advance near-identical political narratives within a domestic context, the distinction between independent journalism and ideological advocacy becomes blurred. These observations, it must be emphasized, represent opinions and public debate—not judicial findings or proven conclusions.

Disinformation Without Proof

The “Epstein Files” episode illustrates a broader phenomenon: disinformation does not require verification to achieve impact. Its effectiveness lies in repetition, emotional framing, and the strategic use of insinuation. Once the original claim failed scrutiny, the narrative subtly shifted toward vague suggestions of “professional meetings” or unnamed references—again without documentary support.

By then, however, the insinuation had already travelled far.

The End Result

Modi's public image remains unaffected.

Despite the intensity of the campaign, the outcome remains clear. Verifiable material does not support any allegation of wrongdoing or improper association involving Prime Minister Modi. His public image, built over decades of political life and scrutiny, remains unaffected by claims that could not withstand basic verification.

More importantly, the episode underscores a critical lesson for a democratic society: disagreement with political leadership is legitimate, even essential. But replacing evidence with conjecture, and journalism with insinuation, ultimately undermines public trust in institutions far beyond politics.

Conclusion

The collapse of the “Epstein Files” narrative serves as a reminder that repetition does not create truth, and speculation cannot substitute evidence. In an age of viral information and polarized discourse, the responsibility to distinguish fact from inference rests with journalists, political actors, and citizens alike.

Vigilance against disinformation—irrespective of the individual it targets—is not a partisan obligation. It is a civic necessity.