New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Gujarat government on the plea of 86-year-old self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is serving life imprisonment in a sexual assault case, seeking bail on medical grounds and directed it to file its reply within three weeks.
Issuing notice to the state government, a bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Arvind Kumar said that since this is a POCSO case, this court will consider this bail plea on medical grounds. Senior advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner before the bench, argued that he (Asaram) was suffering from several ailments including blockage.
In this case, Asaram has approached the apex court demanding suspension of sentence and bail. He has claimed in his petition that he is a victim of media trial and conspiracies aimed at gaining control of his ashram.
He alleged in his plea, filed through advocates Rajesh Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, that his sentence was full of anomalies. It is based only on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. The petition states that there is no medical or independent evidence to support the allegations. He claimed that he has been falsely implicated to tarnish his reputation and oust him from his ashram.
Citing serious health problems including multiple heart attacks and serious illness in the petition, Asaram argued that his continued imprisonment is a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition also claims that every passing day in jail is deteriorating his health and dignity.
He also claimed that he had already spent more than 11 years in prison and may not survive the hearing of his pending appeal.
Asaram was convicted in January 2023 for serious crimes under sections 376(2)(C), 377 and others of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on charges dating back more than two decades.
The Gujarat High Court had in August 2024 rejected Asaram’s plea to suspend his sentence, citing his previous criminal cases and other pending cases. However, Asaram argued that these unrelated proceedings warranted bail in the case. There is no impact on their rights.
He emphasized the fact that justice should not be denied on the basis of moral bias or irrelevant considerations.
