INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to maintain social order by ensuring that those who commit crimes are punished, while also protecting the fundamental rights of the accused. In India, this balance is managed by Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the “procedure established by law.”[1] This means that the government must follow a strict set of rules to ensure fairness. However, a troubling trend has emerged where these rules, the “text” of the law, are being used to help people convicted of serious crimes avoid staying in prison. When a person is found guilty but is later released due to a technical error in the legal paperwork, it creates a crisis of faith in the system. It raises a difficult question: Is the law meant to find the truth, or is it merely a game of using the right words in the right documents?
The core of every trial is a document called the “Charge.” Under Sections 211 to 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now updated in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the charge is the official notice given to the accused. [2] It tells them exactly which law they broke and what facts the government has against them. The law requires this document to be precise so the accused can defend themselves. In the case of Willie Slaney v State of MP, the Supreme Court explained that while small errors in a charge might be acceptable, any mistake that “misleads” the accused can be a reason to challenge a conviction.[3] While this rule was created to prevent innocent people from being wrongly punished, it has become a doorway for powerful convicts to argue that their punishment is legally wrong, even if the evidence proves they committed the crime.
THE UNNAO CASE AND THE DEBATE OVER STATUTORY DEFINITIONS
The Unnao rape case[4] provides a clear example of how technicalities can stall justice. This case involved Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) who was convicted of raping a minor. Because Sengar was an influential politician, the trial was moved to Delhi to ensure a fair process. He was eventually found guilty and given a life sentence. However, in late 2025, the Delhi High Court decided to pause his sentence and grant him bail. This decision was not based on new evidence showing he was innocent. Instead, it was based on a debate over the definition of a “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012.
Sengar had been convicted under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, which deals with “aggravated penetrative sexual assault.”[5] This section is used when a “public servant” commits the crime, as it is seen as a betrayal of state power. Because this is an “aggravated” crime, it carries a mandatory life sentence. During the appeal, Sengar’s legal team argued that an MLA might not count as a “public servant” under that specific part of the POCSO law. They argued that if he is not a public servant, the “aggravated” part of the charge was wrong, and his life sentence might be too high. This doubt about a definition was enough for the court to grant him bail. This shows a gap in the law: everyone knows the act of rape occurred, but because the “label” used in the paperwork is being questioned, the punishment has been put on hold.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DENYING BAIL IN SERIOUS CRIMES
A common saying in law is “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”[6] However, this rule is only meant to apply before a person is convicted[7]. Once a person has been found guilty by a trial court, the situation changes. Under Section 389 of the CrPC (and Section 430 of the BNSS), a court should only suspend a sentence if there are very strong reasons.[8] In cases involving heinous crimes like the rape of a minor, the law should be much stricter. There are several legal reasons why bail should be denied in these situations, even if there is a technical error in the charges.
First, the “Gravity of the Offence” must be the most important factor. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases like State of UP v Amarmani Tripathi that when a crime is so serious that it shocks society, the court must be hesitant to grant bail.[9] Second, the safety of the victim is a major concern. In the Unnao case, the survivor has expressed fear for her life. The law should prioritise the “right to life” and the safety of the survivor over the “right to liberty” of a convicted criminal. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted in Preeti v State of Maharashtra that “suspension of sentence is not a routine matter.”[10] If a person is found guilty of the act of rape, a debate over a job title should not be enough to let them out of jail while the appeal continues.
REFORMING THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT THE TRUTH
To prevent these technical failures, the Indian legal system needs reform. One solution is “Pre-Trial Scrutiny,” where every charge sheet in a serious crime is reviewed by expert lawyers before it reaches the judge. This would ensure that the “text” is correct from the start, leaving no room for loopholes later. Additionally, the government must “harmonise” the laws. This means making sure that definitions are the same across all legal books. If an MLA is a public servant under one law, they should be a public servant in all laws. By removing these differences in wording, we can close the loopholes that powerful people use to escape justice.
Most importantly, courts should prioritise “Substance over Form.” The Supreme Court in Ratlam Municipality v Vardichand famously noted that the law should not be a “captive of procedure.”[11] This means that if the evidence clearly shows a person is guilty, a small mistake in the paperwork should not be enough to let them out. The law was created to protect people, not to protect paperwork. We must ensure that the “text” serves the truth, rather than acting as a back door for the powerful to escape the consequences of their actions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the balance between procedural fairness and substantive justice remains a major challenge for the Indian judiciary. While protecting the rights of the accused is necessary to prevent the abuse of state power, these rights must not be used to undermine the accountability of those convicted of heinous crimes. The Unnao case demonstrates that when technicalities regarding statutory definitions become more important than the proven facts of a crime, the victim’s right to justice is sacrificed. For the legal system to maintain its credibility, it must ensure that procedural lapses do not become a tool for the influential to bypass the law. Justice is only truly served when the law protects the vulnerable and ensures that those found guilty face the full weight of their actions, regardless of the fine print.
Author(s) Name: Shreya (Chanakya National Law University)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[2] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, ss 234–238
[3] Willie (Slaney) v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116
[4] ‘Kathua and Unnao Cases: Linking Sexual Crimes with Identity Politics Obstructs Reforms in Rape Laws’ (Firstpost, 15 April 2018) <https://www.firstpost.com/india/kathua-and-unnao-cases-linking-sexual-crimes-with-identity-politics-obstructs-reforms-in-rape-laws-4432221.html> accessed 14 February 2026
[5] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, s 5(c)
[6] State of Rajasthan v Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308
[7] Mahak Jain & Abhiranjan Dixit, ‘”Bail: A General Rule, Jail: An Exception” an Analysis’ (2022) 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch 1
[8] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 430
[9] State of UP v Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
[10] Preeti v State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC OnLine SC 915
[11] Ratlam Municipality v Vardichand (1980) 4 SCC 162
