Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court on Friday extended the interim bail to rape convict Asaram Bapu, alias Asumal Harpalani, by three months. This decision came after a division bench initially delivered a split verdict, but later a third judge concurred with the view that Asaram should be given bail on health grounds.
Asaram sought bail for six months to undergo ayurvedic treatment after his interim bail, granted by the Supreme Court for medical treatment, was to end on March 31. A HC division bench on Friday morning delivered a split verdict with Justice Ilesh Vora extending bail to Asaram for three months, whereas Justice Sandeep Bhatt expressed a dissenting view that bail should not be granted.
Justice Vora granted interim bail, stating that Asaram was suffering from a serious ailment and should be allowed to have adequate and effective treatment. He granted bail on the condition that Asaram should not meet his followers in a group and “there shall be three security personnel in the form of police officials to be present in the vicinity of the applicant, and the police officials will not interfere with the medical treatment, his meeting with any individual, and in a normal or lawful conduct.”
Justice Bhatt, however, differed from Justice Vora and stated that during the previous bail term, Asaram visited many allopathic and ayurvedic doctors, but he visited those doctors only once and, though advised, he did not take any follow-up treatment. “I do not see any ‘need’ or valid reason for granting/extending temporary bail to the applicant on the so-called medical ground,” Justice Bhatt’s order reads.
Justice Bhatt further mentioned that the difference of opinion between the two judges was on “Whether a period of temporary bail granted to the applicant by the Apex Court from 07.01.2025 to 31.03.2025 was properly utilised by the applicant and accordingly, has he shown any real medical need which requires consideration of temporary bail for a further 60 days, that too for ayurvedic treatment?”
The matter was soon referred to Justice A S Supehia for a third judge’s opinion, and he concurred with Justice Vora. He stated, “It cannot be said that an 86-year-old ailing person should confine his treatment to a particular therapy or particular system of medicine. The Supreme Court has not restricted the applicant from taking treatment in any form.”