Gujarat High Court rejects Asaram’s temporary bail plea in 2013 rape case
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a request by religious figure Asaram Bapu for temporary bail in a 2013 rape case. Asaram, who is currently serving a life sentence for multiple rapes committed between 2001 and 2006, sought 20 days of release, citing a previous ruling by the Rajasthan High Court that granted him parole due to his age and lengthy incarceration. His legal team argued that the Rajasthan decision justified his temporary release, but the Gujarat authorities and state prosecutors opposed the plea, stating that parole in one case does not automatically grant bail in another. The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's prior consideration of Asaram's health but concluded there was insufficient justification for temporary bail at this time. Asaram has faced multiple convictions across different cases, including a recent acquittal on gangrape charges by the Rajasthan High Court.
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) ruled that individuals who assault doctors and hospital staff “do not deserve to roam on the streets even for a minute,” leading to a Maharashtra corporator accused of attacking three municipal doctors in Thane withdrawing his bail plea. The court expressed concern over repeated incidents of violence against medical personnel, including a recent attack in Palghar involving Shiv Sena workers. The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, indicated it would issue notice on the Maharashtra government’s appeal challenging the bail granted to Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, a Shiv Sena corporator. Mhatre had challenged the Bombay High Court’s July 18 order staying his bail and its August 7 directive imposing strict conditions on his release, including remaining outside Maharashtra until the trial begins. The Supreme Court noted that similar groups had previously assaulted doctors in Palghar on September 5, following a dispute over the treatment of an injured individual during a Dahi Handi celebration. The Bench emphasized that such actions showed a pattern, urging a stronger legal response. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Mhatre, stated that the individuals involved in the Palghar incident were not the same as those accused in the Thane case. He requested permission to withdraw Mhatre’s plea, suggesting the matter should be resolved. Justice Nath stressed the need for a broader message against attacks on medical professionals, stating that such individuals should not be allowed to move freely. The court accordingly issued notice on the Maharashtra government’s appeal and permitted Mhatre to withdraw his petitions. The case originated from an alleged assault on three doctors at the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation-run Shastri Nagar Hospital in Dombivli, Thane district, on July 6. Mhatre and others reportedly attacked the doctors after they recommended transferring a pregnant woman to another hospital due to overcrowding in the neonatal intensive care unit. Following the incident, the Bombay High Court initiated suo motu proceedings, stayed Mhatre’s bail on July 18, and ordered his detention at Aadharwadi Jail in Kalyan. On August 7, the High Court granted bail to Mhatre and some other accused under strict conditions, directing them to remain outside Maharashtra until the trial commenced. Meanwhile, in Vadodara, the Gujarat High Court rejected a plea by self-styled Godman Asaram Bapu for temporary bail in a 2013 rape case. Asaram, serving a life sentence for multiple rapes, sought 20 days of temporary bail based on an August 3 order from the Rajasthan High Court granting him 20-day parole. His counsel argued that the Rajasthan High Court had considered his age and lengthy incarceration in that case, dismissing concerns about his release as unfounded. Despite this, the Gujarat authorities denied his application for parole, and he later approached the High Court for temporary bail. The state opposed the plea, asserting that Asaram had not presented independent grounds for temporary bail and that reliance on the Rajasthan High Court’s order was insufficient. Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave emphasized that the Gujarat High Court should not exercise its discretionary powers without a valid basis. The state also pointed out that Asaram had not disclosed the specific grounds on which parole was granted in the Rajasthan case, which the court deemed essential for evaluating his request. The Gujarat High Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s August 6 order, which had reviewed a medical report from AIIMS Jodhpur. The report concluded that Asaram did not require hospitalization but required continuous assistance from trained caregivers. The Supreme Court had allowed him to seek further review if his health condition worsened. The Gujarat High Court observed that Asaram could approach the Supreme Court again if necessary and therefore found no immediate reason to entertain his plea. The detailed order is still pending. Asaram has faced multiple convictions, including life sentences in two cases for raping minors at his ashram. In May 2026, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted him on charges of gangrape but upheld his conviction for rape. The court acknowledged the proof of offenses under the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a request by religious figure Asaram Bapu for temporary bail in a 2013 rape case. Asaram, who is currently serving a life sentence for multiple rapes committed between 2001 and 2006, sought 20 days of release, citing a previous ruling by the Rajasthan High Court that granted him parole due to his age and lengthy incarceration. His legal team argued that the Rajasthan decision justified his temporary release, but the Gujarat authorities and state prosecutors opposed the plea, stating that parole in one case does not automatically grant bail in another. The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's prior consideration of Asaram's health but concluded there was insufficient justification for temporary bail at this time. Asaram has faced multiple convictions across different cases, including a recent acquittal on gangrape charges by the Rajasthan High Court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal proceedings involving Asaram Bapu, detailing both the arguments made by his legal team and the counterarguments from the state and judicial authorities. There is no overt ideological slant toward either side, and the focus remains on the legal and
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the Gujarat High Court's rejection of Asaram's temporary bail plea, citing the primary source document. It correctly mentions the 2013 rape case, the Rajasthan High Court's parole order, and the Supreme Court's involvement regarding medical care. Minor details like the
Why objectivity (95): The article presents the facts neutrally, quoting both Asaram's counsel and the state's opposition. It avoids emotional language and provides a balanced summary of the legal arguments presented in court.
Self-styled Godman Asaram Bapu, currently serving a life sentence for a 2013 rape conviction in Gujarat, has requested temporary bail based on a 20-day parole order issued by the Rajasthan High Court in a separate rape case. His legal team argued that the Rajasthan High Court had considered his age and lengthy incarceration when granting parole and that the Gujarat authorities had rejected his subsequent parole request. However, the Gujarat High Court rejected Asaram's plea, stating that he failed to present independent grounds for temporary bail. The state prosecutor emphasized that the Gujarat High Court should not rely on the Rajasthan High Court's decision and that Asaram must provide the specific reasons for parole granted by the Rajasthan court. The court also noted the recent Supreme Court order addressing similar issues.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the arguments from both sides, Asaram's legal team and the state prosecutor, with balanced reporting. It does not overtly favor either side through loaded language or selective emphasis. While the subject involves a high-profile individual and legal proceedings, the framing is non
Why factuality (90): The article captures the core facts accurately, including the dismissal of Asaram's bail plea and the reference to the Rajasthan High Court's parole order. However, it omits some specific details such as the exact citation of the Gujarat High Court order and the full context of the Supreme Court's m
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting both sides of the argument without apparent bias. It uses standard journalistic language and avoids overtly emotional or opinionated phrasing.
The HinduIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 809/7/2026
The Supreme Court of India ruled that individuals who assault doctors and hospital staff should not be allowed to roam freely on the streets, leading to a Maharashtra corporator, Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, withdrawing his legal challenge to his bail. The court emphasized the need for stricter measures against such acts, citing multiple incidents involving Shiv Sena members, including an attack in Palghar. The bench expressed concern over repeated assaults on medical personnel and ordered the Maharashtra government’s appeal against Mhatre’s bail. Mhatre’s legal team requested to withdraw his plea, which the court approved, while maintaining its stance on sending a strong message against violence against healthcare workers.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a politically sensitive issue involving a political figure (Shiv Sena), the framing remains neutral, focusing on judicial proceedings and legal arguments rather than taking a partisan stance. The court’s emphasis on justice and deterrence is presented objectively, without
Why factuality (85): The article provides specific details about the Supreme Court's remarks, citing the judges involved, the date, and the case involving Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre. It references the Palghar incident and clarifies that the individuals involved in that case were different from those in the Thane case. However
Why objectivity (80): The article uses strong language like 'do not deserve to roam on the streets even for a minute' directly quoting the court. While this is a direct quote, it may imply a moral judgment rather than a legal one. The tone is firm but remains largely neutral in presenting the facts as reported.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
India
