"Delay Tactics Seal Fate": Gujarat HC Rejects Asaram's Son Narayan Sai's Bid for Release in Rape Case

In a stern rebuff to repeated pleas for freedom, the Gujarat High Court on May 4, 2026, dismissed self-styled spiritual leader Narayan Sai's fifth application seeking suspension of his life sentence in a high-profile rape case. A division bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R.T. Vachhani ruled that Sai—son of convicted godman Asaram—had prima facie adopted delay tactics, showing no interest in expediting his appeal against the 2019 conviction by a Surat sessions court. Despite over 11 years in custody, the court refused bail, listing the appeal for final hearing on June 12, 2026.

From Devotee to Victim: The Dark Shadow Over Ashram Life

The saga traces back to December 2001, when a young woman and her family attended religious discourses at Jahangirpura Ashram in Surat, organized by the sprawling network of ashrams linked to Asaram. Narayan Sai, then actively involved, invited her to Meghnagar in Madhya Pradesh for ashram construction, followed by trips to Bihar. Prosecutors alleged that during these travels—spanning 2001 to 2004—Sai sexually molested her in Bihar, raped her at Surat Ashram, and subjected her to unnatural sex and exploitation at Gambhoi Ashram near Himmatnagar, where she was appointed administrator.

Humiliated and fearing reprisal from Sai and his influential father, the victim stayed silent, even confiding minimally in her sister in 2007. Courage came only after Asaram's 2013 arrest in a similar Jodhpur rape case. She filed an FIR on October 6, 2013, at Jahangirpura Police Station under IPC Sections 376(2)(c) (aggravated rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 354 (assault on modesty), 504 (insult), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 508 (inducing to believe in divine displeasure), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt). Sai's aides—Dharmishtha (Ganga), Bhavna (Jamuna), and Pavan (Hanuman)—faced conspiracy charges and received 10-year terms.

Tried in Sessions Case No. 141/2014 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, Sai was convicted on April 30, 2019, and sentenced to life imprisonment on multiple counts, with fines and concurrent terms. His appeal, R/CR.A/1756/2019, lingers since 2019.

Defence Fires on All Cylinders: Incarceration, Flaws, and Conspiracy

Advocates Kruti Shah and Jay N. Shah argued fiercely for suspension under Section 389 CrPC. Sai, arrested December 4, 2023 (but incarcerated over 12 years total by hearing), deserved release due to prolonged custody, citing precedents like Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. (2023) 17 SCC 446 and Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. (2001) SCC 355. They assailed the victim's "sterling" testimony as riddled with contradictions: no immediate outcry after Bihar molestation, timeline mismatches proven by panchang (Hindu calendar) and electronic records shifting events to 2003, unexamined co-travellers and sister, and a decade-long FIR delay unexplained by "fear."

The defence highlighted DW-10 (Shanti)'s denial of Gambhoi incidents, unfair investigation, inimical witnesses, and post-2013 FIRs as political vendetta. Sai's diabetes, migraines, and spinal issues were invoked, with no bail violations during prior temporary releases. Citing Rajendra v. State of Uttarakhand (2026 INSC 238), they claimed fair appeal success odds.

Prosecution Holds Ground: Sterling Witness, No Mercy for Repeat Pleas

Additional Public Prosecutor L.B. Dabhi and complainant counsel Nandish Thackar countered that the victim's evidence was reliable, needing no corroboration per law, with trial court rightly accepting her delay explanation amid Sai-Asaram's clout. This successive fifth application lacked new circumstances—prior ones withdrawn or unpressed, even misleading the Supreme Court. Post-conviction, innocence presumption evaporates in grave offences.

Long incarceration? Self-inflicted by stalling appeal hearings since 2019 via serial applications. Citing Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2023) 6 SCC 123 and Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230, they urged rejection, emphasizing societal interest over individual liberty.

Balancing Scales: Prima Facie No Acquittal, Delay Dooms Bid

Drawing from Supreme Court lore like Ash Mohammad v. Shivrajsinh (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2007) 1 SCC 70, the bench stressed no automatic bail for long custody; courts must weigh offence gravity, antecedents, and palpable acquittal chances without full reappraisal. Sai's case warranted none: trial court found victim's testimony credible, delay justified, no "gross" flaws apparent.

Crucially, Sai's history—five applications withdrawn/unpressed (e.g., CRMA Nos. 2/2020, 2/2021 rejected, Supreme Court SLP)—revealed "misuse of process," not cooperation. Even offered day-to-day appeal hearing, counsel prioritized bail. Thus, "the convict himself [is] the contributory factor."

Key Observations

"having regard to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, it is difficult for us to come to a prima-facie conclusion that, the applicant-convict has a fair chances of acquittal."

"the applicant-convict is not interested at all in expeditious hearing of his appeal and by adopting delay tactics, he having tendency to file repeated applications which conduct itself disentitle the applicant for discretionary relief"

"the convict himself has created a situation for his long incarceration... now he is not entitled to claim that, due to long incarceration and delay in hearing the appeal, he may be released on bail pending the appeal."

No Bail, Clock Ticks to June

"The application fails and it is hereby dismissed." Observations are "tentative and prima-facie," confined to this IA. The bench urged Sai to argue the appeal on June 12 post-vacation. This echoes media reports of Sai's pattern, mirroring Asaram's convictions, underscoring courts' intolerance for stalling in heinous crimes. Future convicts in appeals must prioritize hearings over endless bail bids, lest liberty yield to justice's pace.