Back
rejects Asaram's 20-day plea citing on health
Ahmedabad, – The on Tuesday dismissed a plea by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu seeking 20 days of in a rape case, ruling that the had already granted him the to approach it if his health deteriorated. A division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L.S. Pirzada found no independent ground to entertain the application.
The Backdrop of the Bail Bid
Asaram is serving a following his by a in for repeatedly raping a minor disciple between 2001 and 2006. His against that () remains pending before the . The present application for was filed after the , on , granted him 20-day in a separate rape case in Jodhpur. Asaram argued that without similar relief from Gujarat, the Rajasthan order would become “a .”
Arguments on Both Sides
, appearing for Asaram, submitted that the had already found the authorities’ objections to to be “misleading and figments of imagination without any basis.” He highlighted that Asaram had spent over 13 years in , had not misused previous bail periods, and posed no danger to society. The plea, he clarified, was not based on medical grounds, as the had already arranged round-the-clock caregiver assistance following an report.
countered that Asaram had failed to disclose the specific grounds on which was granted by the . He argued that is not a right and that the court’s should not be exercised without an . Dave also pointed out that the had already dealt with health-related issues and allowed Asaram to mention the matter if his condition worsened.
Court’s Reasoning and Key Observations
The bench noted a crucial gap: the order dated August 3 from the appeared to have been passed without reference to the ’s subsequent order of , which gave Asaram to approach the apex court in case of health deterioration. The observed:
“We at this stage, do not find any reason to entertain this application in view of the reserved in favour of the applicant to move the Hon’ble Apex Court.”
The court also recorded that “apprehension of the serious danger to the family of the complainant was also highlighted” before the , but that did not sway the Gujarat bench.
The Decision
The application () was rejected in its entirety. The court held that Asaram remains free to approach the if his health deteriorates, as already permitted. The dismissal leaves Asaram without in the Gujarat case, while his in Rajasthan remains effective only upon implementation by prison authorities – a process that the noted could not be independently completed due to pending .
The judgment reinforces the principle that cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that a order from one jurisdiction does not automatically create grounds for release in another, especially when higher is already in place.
