Supreme Court Refuses Interim Bail To Asaram; Remarks That Only 'Danger To Life' May Warrant Consideration

The Supreme Court has refused to grant interim bail or suspend the life sentence of self-styled godman Asaram (Ashumal), making it clear that it will not pause his imprisonment for routine health issues.

However, the Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by him, challenging the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court where the High Court had partly modified his 2018 conviction by dropping charges of criminal conspiracy and gang rape, but upheld his principal conviction under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court said that issuing notice is a necessity given that the petitioner is serving a life sentence, but firmly ruled out the immediate consideration of regular bail or a suspension of sentence.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice in the SLP while refusing to grant interim bail to Asaram.

Justice Sundresh said, "See, all those contentions are only for considering—we are not considering a suspension of sentence. We are not granting… If you respond, we will see. See, subject to hearing him, we are not going to give regular bail, we will make it very clear. See, subject to hearing you, we will consider whether any grave necessity is there for giving relief on medical grounds. There may be some usual health issue that we are not going to consider. It is like, if it is not given, then it will be a danger to his life. Unless that situation is there, that is the only factor we will consider. Otherwise, we are not going to. But we need to issue notice in the SLP because it is a life sentence; we have to consider the SLP."

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Petitioner.

A Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court modifying the Trial Court's judgment by setting aside Asha Ram’s convictions for criminal conspiracy, common intention, and gang rape under Sections 120B, 34, and 376D of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, owing to a total failure by the prosecution to prove a prior meeting of minds or a common design. However, the High Court upheld his individual convictions under Sections 370(4), 342, 509, 506, 354A, and 376(2)(f) of the IPC, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, while newly recording convictions under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

Advocate for the victims submitted, "If I may say, there are three very, very crucial facts that have been suppressed by the petitioners in this case, and I want to draw your attention to this. In this particular FIR itself, they had in fact filed an application seeking interim relief, which was rejected. They have placed on record the orders passed in the Gujarat FIR. Now, the distinguishing factor is that the Gujarat FIR pertains to victims who are major victims. In this case, there are two minor victims and therefore the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act have been invoked, number one. Number two, on that basis, on the 1st of March…"

Per contra, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu urged the court to consider Asaram's frail condition, advanced age, and debilitating ailments.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu said, "In ordinary circumstances, I should be very thankful to my friends because, without my opening my mouth, I could secure a notice. But in this case, I need to submit something for your kind consideration. The foremost thing is that, among all here, you know the most about this cause than anybody else, including us. Because many a time you have heard this matter, especially vis-à-vis the condition of the petitioner as to his being close to 90, and the debilitating disorders he has had, and he has still been under police custody. The only thing is that, he was allowed medical facilities in an Ayurvedic hospital because that is all we wanted. We never said that he should just be let off scot-free."

Counsel appearing for the victims strongly resisted any broad interim directions, presenting records to show that following his conviction on May 26, the petitioner was shifted to a hospital on June 2, where he continues to receive medical attention. "So no orders are required," the victim’s counsel contended.

Taking note of this, the Court directed that the existing medical facilities extended to the petitioner in prison shall continue, while explicitly clarifying that the order must not be construed as an endorsement of regular bail.

Justice Sundresh clarified, "We will only say, the medical facilities given to him shall be continued...You see, we know, and our order should not be construed to mean that we are giving regular bail to you. At the same time, if it is of absolute necessity, then we don't want to deny it. But we want to be satisfied from both sides."

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu replied, "This court is the only saviour because we are convicted more by social media than by the courts themselves."

The Bench observed that cases involving figures who command immense spiritual or structural authority cannot be treated as ordinary criminal trials.

The Court said, "We also read the file. A matter like this, we have to, we have to...We can't do it like a normal criminal case...See, because the very case is that you are in such a dominant position. And therefore, we have to look at it with a different approach. So, therefore, that normal way of looking at it—that the prosecution has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt—all those things, that principle, normally something has to weigh in your mind also. So the only thing is, as we are really again making it clear, you reserve all your energy to argue later. All other facilities in the prison will be continued."

The High Court judgment arose out of an incident on the night of August 15, 2013, at Asaram's Manai village ashram near Jodhpur. A Class XII minor student at his Chhindwara Gurukul had been brought there by her parents on the counsel of hostel warden Shilpi and co-accused Sharad, who claimed the girl was possessed by evil spirits and that only Asaram could cure her through "ghost healing." Asaram summoned the victim into his room, forced her parents to stay outside to meditate, and subjected her to a penetrative sexual assault lasting over an hour.

While the High Court had acquitted Asaram of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) and gang rape (Section 376D) due to a lack of evidence showing a prior meeting of minds with his co-accused, it rigorously upheld his conviction for individual penetrative sexual assault of a minor.

The High Court had formally affirmed his primary sentence of rigorous life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, observing that "the shadow of his frailty cannot justify ignoring the victim's voice."

Accordingly, the matter will be heard after four weeks, but the liberty was granted to the Petitioner to mention the matter in case there is an urgency related to his health condition.

Cause Title: Asha Ram @Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan [SLP(Crl) No.11761/2026]