Gujarat HC Rejects Asaram’s 20-Day Temporary Bail [Read Order]

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has rejected an application for temporary bail filed by Ashumal @ Asharam, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a rape case, holding that there was no reason to entertain the plea in view of the liberty already reserved in his favour to approach the Supreme Court should his health deteriorate.

A Bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L.S. Pirzada was hearing an application for temporary bail for a period of 20 days filed in a pending criminal appeal against the applicant's conviction by the Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, by judgment dated 31.01.2023, under Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 342, 357 and 506(2) of the IPC, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts along with other terms of imprisonment.

Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati, appearing with Mr. A.M. Dagli for the applicant, submitted that the application was necessitated because the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, by an order dated 03.08.2026 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14497 of 2026, had granted the applicant first parole for 20 days on furnishing a personal bond and sureties, noting that during his more than 13 years of incarceration there had been no instance of misuse of bail or danger to any witness. It was submitted that this parole order would remain a mere paper order unless the Gujarat authorities, before whom the applicant's appeal was pending, granted him corresponding relief.

It was pointed out that when an application was made to the Gujarat prison authorities for an NOC in furtherance of the Rajasthan order, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of Prison & Correctional Administration, replied on 18.08.2026 that since the applicant's appeal against his Gujarat conviction was pending before the High Court, a Home Department circular of 1995 and this Court's judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.609 of 1995 barred the jail authorities from granting parole or an NOC, and that only the Appellate Court could release such a convict.

Relying on this very circular and the Letters Patent Appeal decision as the source of this Court's discretionary power, Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati urged that, given the applicant's advanced age of 87 years and the absence of any history of misuse of bail, similar discretion ought to be exercised so that the Rajasthan order would not be rendered redundant.

Opposing the application, Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave, appearing with APP Mr. Manan Mehta, submitted that no independent cause had been shown to invoke the Court's discretion, and drew attention to an order dated 06.08.2026 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.11761 of 2026, filed against the applicant's separate conviction by the Rajasthan courts, in which an interim bail prayer made on health grounds had already been considered. In that order, the Supreme Court, after calling for a report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, had recorded that “the application for grant of interim bail stands adjourned with liberty to the petitioner to make a mention before this Court, in case the health of the petitioner gets deteriorated.”

The Court observed that the Rajasthan High Court's parole order of 03.08.2026 appeared to have been passed without any mention of this Supreme Court order of 21.07.2026, and that the parole plea before the Rajasthan High Court had itself proceeded on the ground that the applicant had been found ineligible for parole under the Rajasthan Prisoner Release on Parole Rules, 1958, owing to the pendency of the Gujarat conviction, without any medical fitness certificate and amid apprehensions of danger to the complainant's family. 

Since the Supreme Court's subsequent order dated 06.08.2026 had already reserved liberty to the applicant to mention his case before it if his health deteriorated, the Court held that it saw no reason to entertain the present application, and rejected it.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. N.D. Nanavati, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor, with Mr. Manan Mehta, APP.

Case Title: Ashumal @ Asharam s/o Thaumal Sindhi (Harpalani) vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application (For Temporary Bail) No. 2 of 2026 in R/Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2023. 

[Read Order]