Gujarat High Court Signals Short-Term Bail for Narayan Sai to Visit Ailing Mother

Ahmedabad, India – The Gujarat High Court has orally indicated its willingness to grant a short-term temporary bail to Narayan Sai, who is currently serving a life sentence for rape, to allow him to visit his ailing mother. A division bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice PM Raval, after hearing arguments on September 18, suggested that a brief period of relief would be considered, while dismissing the possibility of a longer duration as sought by the petitioner.

The court's decision, which is yet to be formally pronounced, highlights the judiciary's ongoing task of balancing the principles of punitive justice with humanitarian considerations, especially in cases involving convicts of heinous crimes. This development follows a similar order in June, where Sai was granted temporary bail to meet his father, the controversial godman Asaram Bapu.

Arguments in Court: A Plea Based on Maternal Health

During the proceedings, counsel for Narayan Sai presented a compelling plea centered on the precarious health of his mother. The argument stressed the urgency of the situation, with counsel submitting to the court that his mother was gravely unwell and "can slip into cardiac arrest at any time." This formed the central pillar of the request for a 25-day temporary release.

The counsel also drew the court's attention to a previous instance where bail was granted on similar grounds, attempting to establish a precedent for such compassionate release.

The division bench, however, expressed clear reservations about the lengthy period sought. In a significant oral observation, the court stated its position unequivocally: "we are clear...2-3 days if he wants to meet the mother we will grant. For 55 days we will not grant...your foundation is frankly speaking based on seriousness of your mother." This remark signals the court's acknowledgment of the humanitarian aspect of the plea but simultaneously underscores its cautious approach, limiting the scope of relief to what is strictly necessary.

After a brief hearing, the bench concluded by stating, "We will pass the order...", leaving the final terms and duration of the bail to its formal written order.

The Precedent: A "Humanitarian Ground" Release in June

The court's deliberation was informed by its own recent precedent involving Narayan Sai. It specifically inquired about its previous order from June 2024, when Sai was granted a five-day temporary bail to meet his father, Asaram Bapu, who is also serving a life sentence for rape in a separate case.

In its June 20 order, the High Court had exercised its judicial discretion on "humanitarian grounds." The bench had noted the peculiar circumstances, including Asaram's deteriorating medical condition and the fact that the father and son had not met personally since their respective incarcerations.

The June order stated: "Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances... on humanitarian ground, considering the medical condition of the father of the convict... and since the arrest of the applicant-convict and his father, there was no occasion for both to meet personally because of their different jail, we (are) inclined to exercise our judicial discretion releasing the applicant –convict on temporary bail for a period of 5 (five) days from the date of his release, with Police Surveillance."

That release was subject to stringent conditions, including constant police surveillance and a strict prohibition on meeting followers of either himself or his father in any group setting, to prevent any potential law and order issues. The court's inquiry into this previous order suggests that any new bail grant will likely carry similarly strict conditions.

Case Background: Conviction and Incarceration

Narayan Sai, son of Asaram Bapu, has been incarcerated since his arrest in December 2013. His conviction came on April 30, 2019, when the Sessions Court in Surat found him guilty of a litany of serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The conviction included charges under: * Section 376(2)(f): Rape by a person in a position of trust or authority. * Section 376(k): Rape of a woman with a mental or physical disability. * Section 376(n): Committing rape repeatedly on the same woman. * Section 377: Unnatural Offences. * Section 354: Assault or Criminal Force to a Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty. * Sections 323, 504, and 506(2): Voluntarily Causing Hurt, Intentional Insult, and Criminal Intimidation.

Following the conviction, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, a sentence he is currently serving. The nature and severity of these crimes form a critical backdrop against which any plea for temporary release is evaluated by the courts.

Legal Analysis and Broader Implications

The Gujarat High Court's handling of Narayan Sai's successive bail pleas offers a crucial insight into the judicial approach towards temporary parole and furlough for high-profile convicts. The legal framework allows for the temporary release of prisoners on specific grounds, including family emergencies, but the discretion lies entirely with the court.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores several key points:

• Humanitarian Grounds as a Valid Basis: The court's willingness to engage with the plea, both in June and now, reaffirms that humanitarian reasons, such as the severe illness of a close family member, remain a potent ground for seeking temporary bail, even for those serving life sentences for grave offenses.

• Proportionality and Judicial Caution: The court's oral observation ("2-3 days if he wants to meet... For 55 days we will not grant") is a classic example of the principle of proportionality. The relief granted must be proportional to the reason for which it is sought. The judiciary is clearly demonstrating that compassionate release is not a backdoor to a prolonged respite from incarceration but a limited, necessity-driven exception.

• The Role of Precedent and Conduct: The court's reference to the June bail order and its conditions indicates that a convict's conduct during a previous temporary release is a significant factor. The source notes that "no any untoward incident" was reported during Sai's five-day release in June, a fact that likely weighs in his favor for the current plea.

• Stringent Conditions as a Safeguard: The imposition of police surveillance and restrictions on public interaction serves as a critical safeguard. These conditions allow the court to balance the humanitarian needs of the convict with the state's interest in maintaining public order and ensuring the convict does not abscond or influence witnesses.

The impending order will be closely watched by the legal community. It will further delineate the boundaries of judicial discretion in such sensitive cases and serve as a reference for future applications where the fundamental right to life and liberty, even in its most curtailed form for a convict, is weighed against the retributive and deterrent objectives of the criminal justice system.

The case is titled NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT (CR.MA/2/2025 IN R/CR.A/1756/2019) .