In an application filed before the Gujarat High Court by Asaram Bapu seeking temporary bail for 20 days, a Division Bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L.S. Pirzada took note of the Supreme Court’s decision and rejected the present application.
Asaram Bapu had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on 31-01-2023 and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(c) and 377, along with lesser sentences under Sections 354, 342, 357 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by his conviction, he filed a criminal appeal before this Court, which was pending for a final hearing. It was submitted that Asaram Bapu sought temporary bail primarily because he had been granted first parole for 20 days by the Rajasthan High Court by an order dated 03-08-2026 and that this parole order would become a mere paper order unless the present application was considered.
It was submitted that after the Rajasthan High Court order, an application was moved on 11-08-2026 to the Inspector General of Police, Office of Prison & Correctional Administration, Gujarat to grant first furlough leave and to issue an NOC in response to the letter by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. However, the prayer was refused. It was also submitted that the ground for the present application was a Circular of the Home Department dated 09-10-1995 and since the procedure for granting NOC was not adopted.
The Court noted that no mention of the Supreme Court’s order dated 21-07-2026 had been made before the Rajasthan High Court and that a ground was raised that Asaram Bapu’s prayer for parole was not acceded to since he was not found eligible as per Rule 14(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoner Release on Parole Rules, 1958, on the ground that there was a criminal case registered against the petitioner out of the State of Rajasthan and that he had been convicted in Gujarat. It was noticed that the Supreme Court, by an order dated 06-08-2026, had granted Asaram Bapu the liberty to make mentioned before the Supreme Court, in the event that his health deteriorates.
Hence, finding no reason to entertain the application in view of the liberty reserved in the applicant’s favour, the Court rejected the application.
