Asaram Bapu Moves Gujarat High Court Seeking Temporary Bail For 6 Months In Rape Case, Verdict Reserved

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (March 25) reserved its verdict in a plea moved by Asaram Bapu– convicted in a 2013 rape case by a sessions court in 2023 and serving a life sentence– seeking temporary bail for six months. 

Notably, the Supreme Court had in January this year granted interim bail till March 31 to Asaram Bapu on medical grounds. 

After hearing the arguments of all parties, a division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt reserved its verdict. The matter is listed on March 28 for pronouncement of order on the temporary bail plea. 

At the outset the senior advocate Shalin Mehta appearing for Asaram Bapu apprised the court of the Supreme Court's January order stating that the apex court did not consider the plea before it on merits but had found it a fit case to grant interim bail on medical ground. He pointed to the list of hospitalizations between November 8, 2023 and January 20 this year and further pointed to a report by AIIMS Jodhpur stating that there was an observation therein which said that since the patient is having coronary artery disease he belongs to "high risk category". 

He thereafter pointed to two medical reports from February and submitted they suggest that Asaram Bapu requires specialized nursing care, close monitoring, regular follow endocrinologist and nephrologist. 

He thereafter submitted that the "doctors are of the firm opinion" that Asaram Bapu requires Panchkarma therapy which is a 90-day course.

"There will be some suggestions where it can be argued that ultimately...'you don't want to undergo surgery'...my submission will be that he is 86-year-old and few people in this world after age of 75-80 years will sustain an invasive surgery. There has never been any breach of any condition...When you are a convict you don't give up all your rights under Constitution of India. Yes your rights will be truncated because there will be jail time, but the core rights will stay with you. If you require treatment to keep yourself healthy then that right is part of Article 21 and it can be sought by the convict. Because charge is grave and I'm doing life time in jail that does not mean that if death comes it has to be hastened. If it can be delayed by a good treatment which I require then convicts under Constitution do have this right," Mehta said. 

He submitted that multiple assessments had been done of Asaram Bapu and the advice and reports from all the specialists had at least one common ground that it is a fatal condition.

"Situation or health of applicant is not good at all," Mehta emphasized. 

Meanwhile the State's counsel Hardik Dave argued that it was not as if the State was insensitive about the convict's health.

He said that since November-January the hospitalization was for 141 days and around 15 times he was required to be taken for emergency, adding that this was the picture which the apex court had considered for Asaram Bapu's interim bail on medical ground upto March 31. 

"Therefore Supreme court had granted him liberty to approach this court for any further need. Therefore he will have to show the need for extension of interim bail on medical grounds. The need is very much required to be pointed out before his hon'ble court," the State's counsel said. 

He submitted that the AIIMS Jodhpur certificate that was placed on record was unsigned and it appeared that Asaram Bapu went only on one day in the OPD. 

Pointing to Asaram Bapu's medical visits, the counsel argued that he had visited certain doctors but he had not gone again for a follow up. 

"That itself shows that there is no need. If at all person is suffering then he will take doctors advice and take follow up treatment. Considering this as he has not acted as per advice of doctor in taking follow up treatment it indicates that there is no further need," the counsel added. 

He said that reasonable restrictions are always there when a person is in category of convict.

"Need cannot be an ayurvedic treatment which will last for all times to come. It won't end in near future. Otherwise all convict will say I want to take ayurvedic treatment release me on bail and it will last for all times to come. This is what my submission is. Therefore under reasonable restriction criteria he cannot choose that I will go panchkarma treatment which will last for 90 days. For the interregnum period of 90 days which Supreme Court had granted, he had never availed of, and only on March 18 he went to this hospital and placed on record this document," the State's counsel said. He added that age by itself will not be a ground for a convict to ask for bail. 

He further said that whatever treatment was required, Asaram Bapu was getting it in jail.

Meanwhile senior advocate BB Naik appearing for the complainant-victim submitted that it is not necessary for Asaram Bapu to be granted temporary bail. He submitted that Asaram Bapu was getting treatment from AIIMS Jodhpur which is not an ordinary hospital.

He further pointed to documents and said that Asaram Bapu's blood pressure appeared to be normal. 

"If he is heart patient and serious patient blood pressure cannot be at this level," the senior counsel said. He submitted that certain treatments can be taken jail which is making arrangement and hence it was not a fit case for extending temporary bail. 

On January 31, 2023, a sessions Court found Asaram Bapu guilty of raping his female disciple multiple times at his Ahemdabad-based Ashram and convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was convicted under IPC Sections 376(rape), 377(unnatural offences), Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 357(Assault or criminal force in an attempt wrongfully to confine a person) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty).

Bapu had approached the High Court with an application seeking suspension of sentence but the same was rejected in August last year.

Case title: ASHUMAL @ ASHARAM THAUMAL SINDHI (HARPALANI) versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

CR.MA/1/2025 IN R/CR.A/607/2023

Counsel for petitioner: Senior advocate Shalin Mehta, advocate Ashish M Dagli

Counsel for State: PP Hardik Dave

Counsel for Complainant: Senior advocate BB Naik and advocate Ekant Ahuja