Medical bail only in case of ‘grave necessity’, Supreme Court tells Asaram’s side

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

Supreme Court gave Asaram’s side liberty to make an urgent mentioning in case his condition deteriorated, warranting medical attention. The court said medical facilities afforded to the petitioner would continue. File | Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court clarified in an oral observation, on Tuesday (June 30, 2026), that it would consider medical bail for self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 Rajasthan rape case involving a minor survivor, only if his life was in danger.

“Usual health issues, we are not going to consider. If medical bail is to be given, it would be only if your life is in danger. That is the only factor we will consider,” Justice M.M. Sundresh, heading a Vacation Bench, remarked.

Issuing notice to the State of Rajasthan, Justice Sundresh said the court cannot approach this case like any other criminal case. “The fact is that you are in such a dominant position,” the judge addressed Asaram’s side, led by senior advocate Dama Seshadiri Naidu.

Mr. Naidu submitted that his client was nearly 90 years old and suffered from debilitating disorders.

The Bench gave him liberty to make an urgent mentioning in case the condition of the godman deteriorated, warranting medical attention. The court said medical facilities afforded to the petitioner would continue.

Appearing for Rajasthan on caveat, advocate Shraddha Deshmukh submitted that the petitioner had not come with clean hands to the apex court, and suppressed crucial facts. Ms. Deshmukh said the petitioner was seeking interim bail on medical grounds, but his earlier application for interim relief had been rejected by the apex court. The State counsel submitted the petitioner side had placed on record orders passed in a Gujarat FIR against the godman.

The Gujarat FIR pertained to victims who were majors. In this case, the victim was a minor, and the petitioner had been convicted for offences including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the