No immediate bail for Asaram Bapu in 2013 rape case
What's the story
The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Rajasthan government on self-styled godman Asaram Bapu's bail plea. The plea challenges the Rajasthan High Court's decision to uphold his conviction for sexually assaulting a minor devotee in 2013. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu clarified that it will not grant bail without hearing the state's side or unless there is a clear warrant based on Asaram's health condition.
SC
What court said
"We are not granting bail now. Subject to hearing the state, we will consider if there is grave necessity to grant bail, like (if his health condition is such that) his life is in danger. But we are issuing notice in the SLP. We have to consider it. Three weeks to file counter," the court said.
Conviction details
What is the case against Asaram
The case against Asaram dates back to August 2013 when a minor devotee was allegedly confined and sexually assaulted at his ashram in Jodhpur. A trial court convicted him along with two co-accused, hostel warden Sanchita Shilpi and school director Sharad Chandra. They appealed their convictions to the Rajasthan High Court, which upheld the rape conviction but acquitted them of criminal conspiracy and gang rape charges. They then moved the Supreme Court.
Health concerns
He is 90 now, has medical issues: Asaram's lawyer
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for Asaram, urged the Supreme Court to consider his client's medical condition. He also expressed concern over a social media trial. "Many a time your lordship has heard this case. He is 90 now and he has medical issues...This court is our only hope, because now the conviction is by the social media," Naidu said. The state counsel opposed any interim relief, highlighting the involvement of a minor victim in the case.
Medical facilities
Bail only if there is an absolute necessity: SC
The Supreme Court eventually observed that Asaram's medical facilities could continue for now. It said the question of interim bail would be considered later, depending on his health condition. "We can just say medical facility given to petitioner shall continue," the bench observed. It said that if there is an absolute necessity to preserve life, they may grant liberty and not delay further proceedings.