- Rajasthan High Court granted 20-day parole to convict Asaram.
- Court noted his 13-year incarceration and good conduct.
- State’s objections against parole were deemed speculative.
Jodhpur, Aug 4 (PTI) The Rajasthan High Court has granted 20-day parole to self-styled “godman” Asaram, who is serving a life sentence in a 2013 case of sexually assaulting a minor, saying the state government failed to justify its decision to reject his parole application.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit granted relief to 85-year-old Asaram, lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail, taking note of the duration of his incarceration and his conduct during earlier periods of interim release.
It observed that Asaram has already undergone imprisonment for 13 years, one month and 24 days. It noted that he had previously been granted interim bail on several occasions and there was no record of him violating the conditions of bail, attempting to evade the legal process, intimidating witnesses or creating any law and order problem during those periods.
The court in its August 3 order allowed the first regular parole to Asaram, directing that he be released for 20 days on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two solvent sureties of Rs 25,000 each.
During the hearing, the State informed the court that Asaram’s application had earlier been rejected by a committee headed by the Jodhpur District Collector and District Magistrate.
The police had strongly opposed his release, expressing apprehension that he might abscond if released on parole. The State also invoked Rule 14(A) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, contending that criminal proceedings against him were pending outside Rajasthan and that he had already been convicted by a court in Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
The government argued that Asaram was undergoing medical treatment and had not been declared medically fit for parole by the competent medical officer. It also submitted that his release could pose a security risk to the victim’s family, urging the court to reject the parole plea on these grounds.
The bench, however, concluded that the apprehensions raised by the State and the police were speculative and unsupported by any concrete evidence.
It also stated that Asaram’s entitlement to parole in relation to the sentence awarded by the Rajasthan court would be governed solely by the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.
Proceedings or convictions in other states, the court said, would continue to be dealt with under the respective laws applicable there and could not, by themselves, justify denial of parole in the present case.
ALSO READ: ‘Not Everything Online Is Factual’: Centre Issues Advisory On E20 Fuel Claims
On May 27 this year, the Rajasthan High Court had upheld Asaram’s conviction and life sentence in the case.
On Monday, the State also opposed in the High Court a separate petition by Asaram seeking transfer to an Open Air Camp.
The State referred to Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, noting that it ordinarily excludes certain categories of prisoners from being shifted to Open Air Camps.
These include prisoners whose ordinary place of residence is outside Rajasthan, those convicted of specified offences such as those under Section 376 and 377 (serious sexual offences) of the IPC, and prisoners above the age of 60 years.
The court, however, observed that the issue relating to the applicability of Rule 3(d) is already pending before a larger bench.
Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of Asaram’s claim, the court directed the Additional Advocate General (AAG) to explain the basis for prescribing 60 years as the upper age limit under the Rules.
It also directed the AAG to place on record details of instances, if any, where inmates above that age had nevertheless been shifted to Open Air Camps.
The petition has been listed for further consideration on August 17.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, which was hearing Asaram’s plea seeking an interim bail on health grounds, was informed that experts from AIIMS have suggested that he does not require hospitalisation for treatment but needs round-the-clock medical assistance.
An apex court bench of Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale has posted the matter for hearing on August 6.
(Disclaimer: This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
ALSO READ: PoK Polls ‘Complete Farce’, Pakistan Must Be Held Accountable: India
