Introduction:

In a significant development reflecting the judiciary’s humane approach towards convicts suffering from serious medical ailments, the Gujarat High Court, on November 6, 2025, granted a six-month suspension of sentence to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is currently serving a life sentence following his conviction in a 2013 rape case by the Sessions Court at Gandhinagar. The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani, which observed that the relief was being granted “on the same lines” as the order of the Rajasthan High Court, which had earlier suspended Asaram’s sentence for six months on similar medical considerations. The Court made it clear that the order would be moulded accordingly, extending temporary suspension of sentence for a period of six months. The matter came up before the Gujarat High Court in Ashumal @ Asaram v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2025), filed as a regular bail application seeking temporary suspension of sentence on the ground of deteriorating health and advanced age. The applicant’s senior counsel, Devadatt Kamat, appearing on behalf of Asaram, drew the Court’s attention to the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court last month, which had already granted a similar suspension of sentence on medical grounds. He submitted that Asaram, being in a “vegetative state,” was in dire need of specialized medical treatment not available within the confines of the prison system. Kamat emphasized that his client’s condition required round-the-clock monitoring, rehabilitation therapy, and access to facilities unavailable in the jail hospital. He argued that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends even to prisoners and that denial of adequate medical care would amount to cruel and inhuman treatment prohibited by constitutional jurisprudence.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that Asaram’s age and frail health justified the grant of temporary suspension. He noted that the applicant had been under continuous medical supervision and had developed multiple complications, including cardiovascular and neurological disorders, severely limiting his ability to function independently. Relying on medical reports produced before the Court, Kamat submitted that Asaram’s condition was progressively worsening and that his family was ready to bear the expenses of treatment at an appropriate medical facility. He also pointed out that the Rajasthan High Court, after careful consideration of his medical records, had recorded a finding that Asaram was in a vegetative condition and that necessary medical facilities were unavailable in prison, thus warranting temporary relief. Seeking parity, Kamat pleaded that similar humanitarian considerations be extended by the Gujarat High Court. He assured the bench that Asaram had no intention of evading justice and that whenever his appeal would be listed for hearing, he would appear before the Court or cooperate through counsel. “We are not trying to delay the proceedings,” Kamat submitted. “My only request is that the Hon’ble Court consider his medical condition and age and grant suspension of sentence in line with the Rajasthan High Court’s order.”

Opposing the plea, the State of Gujarat, represented by its counsel, contended that while the applicant’s medical condition was indeed a relevant factor, the same did not justify outright suspension of sentence. The State submitted that if specialized treatment was unavailable in Rajasthan’s jail hospital, the applicant could be shifted to a medical facility in Gujarat where adequate care could be provided under judicial supervision. The State’s counsel emphasized that the prison authorities were capable of ensuring medical attention without granting liberty that could be misused, considering the gravity of the offence. He cautioned that the Court must balance humanitarian concerns with the need to uphold the sanctity of the conviction and the rights of the victim. Referring to previous conduct, the State argued that Asaram had on earlier occasions sought temporary bail on medical grounds but had used such periods to mobilize followers, create disturbances, and delay the judicial process. Therefore, it urged the Court to direct medical care within custody rather than suspension of sentence.

Adding to the opposition, Senior Advocate B.B. Naik, appearing for the victim, strongly objected to any relaxation of sentence. He argued that the medical reports produced by the defence did not show any critical emergency warranting suspension. Naik submitted that Asaram had previously claimed serious illness only to secure release and later resumed travel and public engagements under the pretext of treatment. Referring to the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier observation from its August 27 order, Naik reminded the Court that even that bench had expressed concern that Asaram’s intention might not be purely medical but a disguised attempt to secure liberty for personal reasons. He stated: “Unless he takes treatment at a particular hospital for a long time, there is no justification for suspension of sentence. The certificates produced do not indicate that he is in a life-threatening condition. There is no need to grant temporary bail again.” He urged the Court to consider the rights of the victim, the seriousness of the crime, and the possibility that the convict’s influence could interfere with justice or intimidate witnesses, even indirectly.

The State also pointed out that previously, when the Rajasthan High Court had rejected his temporary bail plea, it had directed Asaram to surrender by August 30. This, the State contended, showed that even the court that initially granted him leniency had imposed strict conditions. The Gujarat government’s counsel thus urged the Court to exercise caution before following the Rajasthan High Court’s example. He suggested that if the Court was inclined to grant relief, it should impose stringent conditions ensuring that the suspension of sentence be solely for medical treatment and not misused for any other purpose.

Judgement:

After hearing all parties, the division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani delivered its oral order granting six-month suspension of sentence, primarily guided by considerations of parity and humanitarian relief. The bench observed that since the Rajasthan High Court had already found the applicant’s medical condition to be critical and had granted suspension for six months, the same rationale would apply. “Granted on the same line… we will mould it accordingly… six months’ time,” Justice Vora orally remarked during the hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner’s advanced age and serious medical condition required compassion, and that suspension of sentence for a limited period would not prejudice the pending appeal. The detailed written order is awaited, but the oral pronouncement makes clear that the Gujarat High Court intended to align its decision with the precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court.

The Court also appeared to accept the reasoning that adequate treatment facilities were unavailable in prison and that Asaram’s condition warranted external medical supervision. The bench, however, maintained a balanced tone, indicating that the relief was temporary and subject to review upon the expiry of six months. It is expected that the final order will include conditions such as regular medical reporting, restrictions on public movement, and prohibition on engaging in public gatherings or communications that could influence ongoing legal proceedings.

This development marks another chapter in the long-running legal saga of Asaram, who was convicted by a Gandhinagar Sessions Court for raping a woman disciple in 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment in April 2018. His conviction followed the more infamous Jodhpur case, where he was sentenced to life for raping a minor at his ashram in 2013 — a conviction upheld by the Rajasthan High Court. The present proceedings before the Gujarat High Court arise from his conviction in a separate case registered within that state.

The Court’s order, while rooted in compassion, also raises important questions about consistency in judicial treatment of convicts claiming medical incapacity. Legal experts note that suspension of sentence, distinct from bail, effectively halts the execution of punishment for a fixed period, allowing the convict to seek treatment or attend to exceptional circumstances. The Gujarat High Court’s decision thus underscores the judiciary’s readiness to exercise discretion in cases involving aged or medically unfit prisoners, reflecting the constitutional principle that even a convict retains the right to life and dignity. However, it also brings renewed focus on the need for accountability — ensuring that such relief is not exploited to undermine the authority of law or the rights of victims.