Asaram seeks bail citing Rajasthan parole, Gujarat High Court rejects plea

Asaram’s counsel argued that the Rajasthan High Court had granted him parole after considering his age and the fact that he had spent more than 13 years in incarceration in that case. The Rajasthan High Court also rejected apprehensions cited by the authorities against his release as “misleading and figments of imagination without any basis”, the counsel submitted. After obtaining that order, Asaram applied for parole before the Gujarat authorities, but his application was rejected.

“This is the dichotomy. Therefore, I’m here for temporary bail,” his counsel submitted. He emphasised that the application was not on the basis of medical grounds and that Asaram was already receiving medical assistance pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court.

The State, however, strongly opposed the plea, arguing that Asaram was asking the Gujarat HC to exercise its discretionary powers without making out an independent case for temporary bail. Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave submitted, “(He is) for x,y,z reason requesting the court to use discretion and (he is) relying on an order passed by another court. First, the basic ground is missing. There appears to be no independent ground for temporary bail (before the Gujarat HC).”

The state also argued that Asaram had not disclosed the grounds on which parole had been sought and granted by the Rajasthan High Court. Those grounds, the counsel said, were crucial before the Gujarat High Court could be asked to exercise its discretionary powers.

“If at all parole is granted, on what ground, without disclosing that… this court will use discretionary power. Then it may happen that the subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court is likely to be breached,” Dave argued, adding that the ground on which parole was granted was the “most germane requirement” for disclosure.

The state also maintained that parole was not a right and that, in the absence of an independent ground for temporary bail, the court’s discretionary powers ought not to be exercised.

The Gujarat HC also took note of the Supreme Court’s order of August 6, passed shortly after the Rajasthan High Court granted parole on August 3. The apex court had considered a report from AIIMS Jodhpur, which found that Asaram did not require hospitalisation but needed round-the-clock assistance from trained caregivers. While allowing him to engage a trained caregiver of his choice, the Supreme Court had kept his application for suspension of sentence pending and granted him liberty to approach it again if his health condition deteriorated.

Taking note of that liberty, the Gujarat HC said in its order dictated in court on Tuesday that it found no reason at this stage to entertain Asaram’s plea, observing that he could approach the Supreme Court if his health worsened. The detailed order is awaited.