Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan v. State of Gujarat & Another (Diary No. 29992-2026), declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s order refusing to suspend the life sentence of Narayan Sai, who was convicted in a 2013 rape case. A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale, while refusing interim relief, directed the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending criminal appeal against conviction and sentence within a time-bound period. The order reflects the Court’s emphasis on balancing the rights of a convict awaiting the outcome of an appeal with the need to ensure that the appellate process is not frustrated by unnecessary delays attributable to the parties themselves.
The case has its origins in allegations made in 2013 by two sisters from Surat, Gujarat, who accused Narayan Sai and his father, self-styled godman Asaram, of sexually assaulting them on separate occasions. Following an extensive investigation and trial, the Sessions Court at Surat, in 2019, found Narayan Sai guilty of rape and other connected offences. Additional Sessions Judge P.S. Gadhvi sentenced him to imprisonment for life and directed him to pay compensation of ₹5 lakh to the victim. Along with Narayan Sai, three of his associates, including two women, were convicted for assisting in the commission of offences and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. His driver, Rajkumar alias Ramesh Malhotra, received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for his role in the case.
After his conviction, Narayan Sai preferred a criminal appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging both the conviction and sentence. Pending disposal of the appeal, he sought suspension of his life sentence under the provisions governing post-conviction bail. The principal basis of his request was that he had remained incarcerated for approximately eleven years, including the period spent in custody before conviction, while his appeal had not yet reached final adjudication. He argued that prolonged imprisonment before the disposal of an appeal undermines the fairness of the appellate process and warranted his release on bail during the pendency of the proceedings.
However, on 4 May 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed his application for suspension of sentence. The High Court observed that the prolonged pendency of the appeal could not be attributed solely to judicial delay because the appellant himself had repeatedly sought interim relief instead of pressing for an early hearing of the main appeal. According to the High Court, the record demonstrated a pattern of filing repeated applications for temporary or regular bail while showing reluctance to proceed with the final hearing of the appeal. Dissatisfied with this finding, Narayan Sai approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the appeal.
The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the High Court had erred in refusing suspension of sentence despite the appellant’s long incarceration and whether any interim relief ought to be granted pending disposal of his appeal against conviction.
Arguments of the Parties:
On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan contended that Narayan Sai had remained behind bars for nearly eleven years and that his criminal appeal had not yet been finally decided. It was argued that prolonged incarceration of a convict awaiting the outcome of a statutory appeal raises serious concerns regarding fairness and access to justice. Since the appeal constitutes a continuation of the criminal proceedings, an inordinate delay in deciding it effectively results in the convict serving a substantial portion of the sentence before the appellate court has an opportunity to examine the correctness of the conviction.
The petitioner maintained that suspension of sentence pending appeal is a recognised judicial remedy intended to protect the rights of convicts where appeals cannot be heard expeditiously. The argument emphasised that continued imprisonment during prolonged appellate proceedings may render the appeal itself ineffective, particularly where the appellate court may eventually modify or overturn the conviction. Therefore, considering the lengthy period already spent in custody, the petitioner sought suspension of the life sentence and release on bail until the appeal could be finally adjudicated.
The petitioner also questioned the High Court’s refusal to grant relief despite acknowledging the long period of incarceration. According to the petitioner, the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 requires courts to consider whether continued detention during prolonged appellate proceedings is justified, particularly where delays occur in the judicial system.
On the other hand, the State of Gujarat opposed the application by relying substantially upon the reasoning adopted by the Gujarat High Court. It was argued that the appellant could not invoke prolonged incarceration as a ground for suspension of sentence when the delay in disposal of the appeal was largely attributable to his own conduct. The State submitted that since the filing of the appeal in 2019, Narayan Sai had consistently pursued applications seeking temporary bail, regular bail, and suspension of sentence rather than cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal itself.
The State pointed to the findings recorded by the High Court that as early as 2021, while rejecting an earlier bail application on merits, the High Court had fixed the criminal appeal for final hearing. Despite this opportunity, the appellant had allegedly failed to proceed with the appeal and instead continued filing interlocutory applications seeking interim release. According to the prosecution, such conduct demonstrated that the appellant was more interested in securing release from custody than obtaining a final judicial determination of the appeal.
The State further relied upon the observations of the High Court made during the hearing of the suspension application. The High Court had specifically offered to hear the criminal appeal on a day-to-day basis. However, counsel appearing on behalf of Narayan Sai informed the Court that she had instructions only to argue the application for suspension of sentence and not the appeal itself. This, according to the State, clearly established that the appellant had chosen not to avail himself of an opportunity for early adjudication of his appeal.
Consequently, the State argued that the appellant had become the principal contributor to the delay in deciding the appeal and therefore could not seek equitable relief on the basis of prolonged incarceration. Granting suspension of sentence in such circumstances would allow a litigant to benefit from delays that he himself had substantially contributed to creating.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to suspend Narayan Sai’s life sentence. Although the Court did not deliver an elaborate judgment on the merits of the application, its order indicates agreement with the High Court’s approach while simultaneously safeguarding the appellant’s right to have his appeal decided within a reasonable period.
The Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale recognised that the proper course in the present circumstances was not to enlarge the appellant on bail but to ensure that the pending criminal appeal receives expeditious consideration. Accordingly, while refusing suspension of sentence, the Court requested the Gujarat High Court to dispose of the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence within a time-bound framework.
The order reflects the settled principle that suspension of sentence after conviction is a matter of judicial discretion rather than an automatic consequence of prolonged incarceration. Courts ordinarily examine several factors before granting such relief, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the strength of the conviction, the likelihood of the appeal being heard within a reasonable time, and the conduct of the convict during the pendency of the proceedings.
In the present case, the Gujarat High Court had recorded detailed findings indicating that the delay in hearing the appeal was not attributable solely to institutional backlog. Instead, it concluded that the appellant himself had repeatedly sought interim relief while avoiding the final hearing of the appeal. The High Court observed that from 2019 onwards, Narayan Sai had consistently pursued applications for temporary or permanent bail instead of cooperating in the early disposal of the criminal appeal.
Particularly significant was the High Court’s finding that when it expressed its willingness to hear the appeal on a day-to-day basis, the appellant’s counsel stated that she had instructions only to argue the application for suspension of sentence. The High Court interpreted this as evidence that the appellant was not genuinely interested in obtaining a prompt decision on the merits of his conviction.
Based on these facts, the High Court concluded that the appellant himself had created the circumstances leading to prolonged incarceration. Therefore, he could not subsequently rely upon that very delay as a ground for suspension of sentence. The Court held that a litigant who contributes to delaying appellate proceedings cannot invoke the resulting delay to seek equitable relief.
Although the Supreme Court’s order is brief, its refusal to interfere effectively affirms the High Court’s reasoning. The decision demonstrates that while prolonged incarceration is undoubtedly an important factor in considering suspension of sentence, it is not decisive in every case. Courts are equally entitled to consider whether the delay results from the conduct of the appellant or from circumstances beyond his control.
At the same time, the Supreme Court recognised that every convicted person possesses a valuable statutory right to have an appeal heard within a reasonable time. Criminal appeals against conviction serve as an essential safeguard against wrongful conviction and excessive punishment. Consequently, instead of granting bail, the Court chose to protect this right by directing that the appeal itself be heard and decided expeditiously.
This approach reflects an important judicial balance. On one hand, it avoids releasing a convict whose conduct, according to judicial findings, contributed to delaying the appellate process. On the other hand, it ensures that the appeal does not remain pending indefinitely, thereby preserving the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
The decision also reinforces the principle that appellate courts should endeavour to dispose of criminal appeals involving convicts in custody as early as possible. Speedy adjudication not only protects the rights of the accused but also serves the interests of victims and society by bringing finality to criminal proceedings.
The present proceedings also assume significance in light of recent litigation involving Narayan Sai’s father, Asaram, who is separately serving a sentence following conviction in another rape case. In that matter, the Supreme Court permitted him to engage a trained caregiver of his choice in prison while declining his request for hospitalisation based upon the medical opinion furnished by AIIMS. Although unrelated to the merits of the present appeal, these proceedings demonstrate the Court’s consistent approach of balancing humanitarian considerations with the requirements of criminal justice.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s order neither comments upon the correctness of Narayan Sai’s conviction nor prejudges the issues pending in the criminal appeal. Those questions remain open for consideration by the Gujarat High Court. The limited issue before the Supreme Court concerned suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on that issue, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s refusal. Instead, by directing expeditious disposal of the appeal, the Court sought to ensure that the appellant’s challenge to his conviction is decided on merits at the earliest opportunity.
The order therefore underscores that the remedy for prolonged pendency of criminal appeals is not invariably release on bail. Where circumstances justify, the more appropriate course may be to accelerate the hearing of the appeal itself, thereby preserving both the rights of the convict and the integrity of the criminal justice process.