The Supreme Court on Tuesday
granted interim bail to self-styled godman Asaram, convicted in a 2013 rape
case, on medical grounds. However, the 83-year-old will remain behind bars as
he requires similar interim bail in another rape case to secure his release.
Asaram has been serving a life
sentence since 2018 after being convicted of raping a minor girl in his Jodhpur
ashram in 2013. He is currently lodged in central jail in Jodhpur. He was also
sentenced in January 2023 for raping a woman at an ashram near Gandhinagar, in
the same year.
Supreme Court's
decision
The interim bail, granted by a
bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, is valid until March
31, 2025. The court has imposed strict conditions, including barring Asaram
from meeting his followers during his time out of jail.
Additionally, the court directed
law enforcement to ensure Asaram is escorted only to medical facilities and not
to interfere in his choice of treatment location. The decision followed
submissions by Asaram’s legal team, which argued that he suffers from serious
health issues requiring urgent medical attention.
Return to jail after
parole
Asaram had recently completed a
17-day parole, returning to Jodhpur jail on January 1, 2025. His parole period
included 15 days of sanctioned leave and two days for travel. During this time,
he sought medical care, continuing a pattern of hospitalisations for various
ailments. In the past, he has received treatment in Pune and at AIIMS Jodhpur
for heart-related conditions.
Rape convictions and
sentencing
In 2018, a Jodhpur court sentenced
Asaram to life imprisonment for raping a minor girl at his ashram. Two of his
aides were handed 20-year jail terms for their roles in the same crime.
In a separate case, Asaram was
convicted in January 2023 for raping a woman at an ashram near Gandhinagar. His
attempts to secure relief in this case have faced repeated setbacks.
The Gujarat High Court last year
rejected Asaram’s plea to suspend his life sentence in the Gandhinagar case.
The court found no merit in his request for relief, emphasising that the
grounds presented were insufficient to justify suspension of his sentence.
Similarly, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the Gujarat government
on his plea for sentence suspension but clarified it would only entertain the
matter if supported by substantial medical evidence.