No Bail, But a Video Call: Gujarat HC on Asaram’s Plea to See Ailing Wife

The Gujarat High Court rejected Asaram’s 20-day temporary bail plea but allowed him to seek permission for video-conference contact with his wife.

What Happened

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, rejected Asaram’s plea for 20 days’ temporary bail to meet his wife, who is undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ahmedabad.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Gita Gopi and L. S. Pirzada considered a medical report placed before the Court. The report stated that Asaram’s wife had responded well to treatment and that the treating doctors expected her to be discharged within two to three days, subject to her clinical condition.

The Court recorded that, in view of her response to treatment and the doctors’ assessment regarding discharge, it found no reason to allow the temporary bail application.

At the same time, the Court permitted Asaram to seek permission from the jail authorities to communicate with his wife through video conferencing. The relief therefore stopped short of temporary release while leaving open a means of contact from custody.

Background & Context

Asaram is serving a life sentence following his conviction by a Gandhinagar court in January 2023 in a case concerning the rape of a woman disciple between 2001 and 2006. He is also serving a separate life sentence in a Rajasthan case. He is presently lodged in Jodhpur Jail, Rajasthan, while his criminal appeal against the Gujarat conviction remains pending before the Gujarat High Court.

The present plea was based on the medical condition of Asaram’s wife, who is 83 years old. Asaram, according to the material reported in connection with the hearing, is 87.

On 29 September, the High Court had directed the local police to verify the circumstances concerning his wife’s illness. The police report stated that she was being cared for by relatives and disciples, with a personal doctor present alongside two treating doctors. The medical material considered by the Court subsequently indicated that she had responded well to treatment.

During the hearing, Advocate Ashish Dagli, appearing for Asaram, submitted that his client had complied with conditions attached to an earlier temporary release. He also offered that Asaram would remain in Rajasthan and bear the expenses connected with the proposed release. Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave opposed the request, arguing that there was no urgency warranting temporary bail.

This was not Asaram’s first temporary bail request before the Gujarat High Court in recent weeks. On 8 September 2026, the Court had rejected a separate 20-day temporary bail plea, referring to the liberty available to him following a Supreme Court order of 6 August. That earlier rejection has been reported by multiple outlets, including PTI.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Gujarat High Court, Division Bench.
• Date: 30 September 2026.
• Parties: Ashumal @ Asharam v State of Gujarat.
• Current Status: The temporary bail plea was rejected. Asaram may seek jail authorities’ permission for video-conference communication with his wife. His appeal against the Gujarat conviction remains pending.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates how the Court assessed the claimed urgency against the material placed before it rather than treating the medical condition alone as determinative.

The sequence was significant. The Court first directed police verification of the circumstances surrounding the illness. It then considered the medical material, including the doctors’ assessment that the patient had responded well to treatment and could be discharged within two to three days if her clinical condition permitted. That estimate was the doctors’ opinion recorded by the Court, not a guaranteed discharge date.

On that material, the Bench did not find sufficient grounds for the requested 20-day temporary release. At the same time, permitting Asaram to approach jail authorities for video-conference contact created a narrower channel for communication without granting temporary bail.

The order therefore addresses two separate questions: whether the circumstances justified release from custody, and whether communication with an ailing family member could still be facilitated while he remained in custody. The Court’s response treated those requests differently.

The underlying criminal appeal remains pending, and the present order concerns the temporary bail request arising from the circumstances described above. It does not determine the outcome of that appeal.

Closing

The Gujarat High Court has declined to grant Asaram the 20 days of temporary bail sought to meet his wife, relying on the medical material indicating improvement and an expected discharge within two to three days. It has nevertheless allowed him to seek jail authorities’ permission for video-conference contact, providing a limited alternative while he remains in custody.