English
English
English
Asaram’s temporary bail plea was withdrawn in the Supreme Court, while his challenge to the Jodhpur rape conviction has been deferred until November. (Img: X)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by self-styled godman Asaram challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant him temporary bail to visit his ailing wife in connection with the 2013 Gandhinagar rape case.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran permitted the withdrawal after being informed that Asaram was already out on 20-day parole granted by the Rajasthan High Court in a separate rape case involving a minor.
The Bench also deferred hearing his challenge to the Rajasthan High Court judgment upholding his conviction and life sentence in the 2013 Jodhpur minor rape case until November, after the expiry of his parole.
Asaram's parole is scheduled to end on October 27. The Supreme Court directed that his appeal challenging the conviction be listed after he surrenders upon completion of parole.
The Bench also directed the Registry to summon the trial court records in both physical and digital formats. Copies are to be made available to the petitioner, the State and the victim. Appearing for Asaram, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave submitted that notice had already been issued in the appeal challenging his conviction in the Rajasthan case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat, opposed the plea and outlined the sequence of proceedings before the two High Courts.
He submitted that Asaram had initially sought parole from the Rajasthan High Court on medical grounds, but the request was rejected. He subsequently obtained a 20-day parole order from the Rajasthan High Court on another application.
However, his conviction in the separate Gandhinagar rape case prevented his release, prompting him to approach the Gujarat High Court for temporary bail to visit his wife. The Gujarat High Court rejected that request, following which he moved the Supreme Court.
Mehta also referred to the Rajasthan High Court's direction requiring State authorities to comply with its parole order, notwithstanding the rejection of the separate temporary bail application by the Gujarat High Court.
Counsel appearing for the victim informed the Supreme Court that a coordinate Bench had earlier sought a medical report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in connection with Asaram's plea for interim bail on medical grounds.
According to the submission, the report referred to his longstanding medical conditions, and the Court had permitted him to seek relief if his health deteriorated. Dave subsequently informed the Bench that Asaram had allegedly suffered a heart attack the previous night and had been admitted to an intensive care unit.
During the hearing, Dave argued that Asaram could not have been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after being acquitted of certain other charges. Justice Pardiwala orally observed that the Court would examine whether the alleged lapse was sufficient to vitiate the conviction.
“Unless you are able to convince us that because of the lapse the entire conviction would be said to have vitiated, we will look into it,” the judge remarked.
Mehta, in response, referred to the fact that three key witnesses had been murdered during the trial. The Supreme Court thereafter deferred the appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court judgment until November and directed the Registry to obtain the trial court records.
Asaram was convicted in 2018 by a Jodhpur trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a minor girl at his ashram in 2013. The Rajasthan High Court upheld his conviction and sentence in May 2026.
Separately, a Gandhinagar Sessions Court sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2023 for repeatedly raping a disciple at his Ahmedabad-based ashram between 2001 and 2006. His appeal in that case remains pending before the Gujarat High Court.
The temporary bail plea concerning his wife arose from the Gandhinagar case, while the Supreme Court's proposed November hearing concerns his challenge to the Rajasthan High Court judgment in the Jodhpur case.
