"Final Extension": Court Extends Rape Convict Asaram's Interim Bail By A Month
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday extended self-styled godman Asaram's temporary bail by one more month, but made it clear that it would be the "final extension".
Sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 rape case, Asaram (86), is on bail on medical grounds.
The division bench of Justices Ilesh Vora and PM Raval extended Asaram's temporary bail by one more month. Before the bail granted to him by the court on March 28 expired on June 30, the court had granted him an interim extension till July 7.
During a hearing on Thursday, Asaram's lawyer sought that the bail be extended for three more months. However, the HC said it would extend the bail for only one more month and that it would be the "final extension". A detailed order is awaited.
Asaram had approached the high court when the interim bail granted to him by the Supreme Court till March 31 on medical grounds was coming to an end, as the apex court had directed him to do so if he needed any extension.
The division bench of the high court had then delivered a split verdict, after which a third judge to whom the matter was referred granted him three-month temporary bail.
In January 2023, a court in Gandhinagar had sentenced Asaram to life imprisonment after convicting him a rape case. Asaram is also serving life sentence in another case of raping a minor girl at his ashram in Rajasthan in 2013.
In the present case, he was convicted for raping a woman disciple, who hailed from Surat, on several occasions from 2001 to 2006 when she was living at his ashram at Motera near Ahmedabad.
He was convicted under Indian Penal Code sections 376 2 (C) (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 342 (wrongful detention), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 357 (assault) and 506 (criminal intimidation).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC grants divorce: Wife failed to prove claims; 42-year-old marriage ends
HYDERABAD : The Telangana high court has granted divorce to a 70-year-old retired govt teacher from his 62-year-old wife. The couple had married over 40 years ago, but had been living separately since 1991. The woman also lodged a couple of criminal cases, including a dowry harassment case, against him. An attempt to murder case was lodged against him in 1996. However, the retired govt teacher was eventually acquitted by the trial courts. He initially filed a divorce petition in the family court, but it was dismissed. Challenging the family court order, he approached the high court in 2015. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Considering his acquittals in criminal cases filed by the wife and other evidence, a bench of the high court, comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao, noted that false criminal allegations constituted mental cruelty and granted him divorce on June 23, 2025. Though they were married for 42 years, the couple stayed together for just eight years. The couple was also involved in prolonged litigation that included property disputes initiated by their son. The 70-year-old, arguing his case in the family court, claimed that his wife had filed multiple dowry harassment cases against him and his family, forcing him to live apart and causing prolonged mental trauma. However, the family court dismissed his petition, observing that he did not take adequate steps to reconcile with her or seek restitution of conjugal rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo When it was challenged in the HC, the judges noted that his wife failed to provide convincing evidence of her willingness to reunite, and her claims were not supported beyond her testimony. The HC held that the husband's acquittals in two separate dowry harassment cases — including one as recent as 2016 — weakened the credibility of her accusations and established a pattern of harassment by the wife. Referring to the acquittals, the bench observed that acquittal assumes significance in light of the allegations made by her, and it casts a shadow on the truth of her allegations. His mother's evidence was also sufficient to conclude they made efforts to bring her back.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court halt an Act passed by a State?
The story so far: Disposing of a writ and contempt petition, the Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court. What did SC order of July 2011 state? The Supreme Court, on July 5, 2011 issued an order stating that the State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities. The Court ordered the State to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs. The order said that the State shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos. The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists. The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Why was a contempt case filed? Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted 'to aid and assist the security forces' in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc. Section 5(2) of the Act further states that the members of the auxiliary force 'shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces…'. The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act. Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee). The legislature thus had addressed all the concerns observed by the Supreme Court. However, it was argued by the petitioners that the said enactment was not in consonance with the Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Why was contempt prayer rejected? There were reasons for rejecting the relief sought by petitioners. One, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the fact that all the directions issued by the Court had been complied to by the State of Chhattisgarh and necessary reports were submitted. Second, the Court said that every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt. The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed only on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. The Court therefore held that unless and until it is first established that the statute so enacted is in opposition to constitutional law or otherwise, it cannot be struck down. R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer and views are personal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
US SC clears way for deportation of several immigrants to South Sudan
The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger AP Washington The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding a lawless act of defiance. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face imprisonment, torture and even death if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
