In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the plea by Narayan Sai, son of notorious self-styled preacher Asaram Bapu, to suspend his life sentence in a 2013 rape case. The decision upholds the Gujarat High Court’s earlier refusal to grant such relief. However, the apex court has mandated that the High Court expedite its decision on Sai’s appeal against his conviction, aiming for a resolution within three months.
Supreme Court’s Directive
The ruling came from a Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale. The Court underscored the necessity for a swift adjudication by the Gujarat High Court, instructing both Sai and the State to cooperate fully with the proceedings. “We request the High Court to endeavor to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. We make it clear that the petitioner and the State will cooperate,” stated the Court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that if the High Court fails to resolve the appeal within the stipulated timeframe, Sai retains the right to seek further relief. “In any way you (Sai) or they (State) will come before us after three months. Then we will consider… even if it’s over, it’s not going to end there. It’ll come before us then we will see about it,” remarked the Bench.
Background of the Case
The legal proceedings pertain to a 2013 rape allegation against Narayan Sai, resulting in his conviction by a Surat sessions court in April 2019. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a former disciple, a judgment that Sai has appealed against in the Gujarat High Court.
On May 4, 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed Sai’s fifth application for interim bail and sentence suspension. The court reasoned it could not preliminarily conclude a likelihood of Sai’s acquittal, particularly given the gravity of the charges. It further emphasized that the presumption of innocence is not applicable post-conviction. The High Court also criticized Sai’s repeated bail applications, which he often withdrew, as a tactic contributing to delays in appeal hearings.
More Read
Arguments and Supreme Court’s Stance
Represented by Senior Advocate N Hariharan, Sai’s defense argued that despite seeking an expedited hearing, the High Court had not prioritized his appeal. “Twelve years have gone by. The offence is also not made out on the face of it,” contended Hariharan, urging the Supreme Court to compel the High Court to hear the appeal on its merits.
The Supreme Court advised focusing on the merits of Sai’s case at the High Court level, indicating confidence in the legal process. “Be confident and argue that. We will ask the High Court to do it,” the Bench commented.
While acknowledging Hariharan’s submissions regarding previous directives for the High Court to consider the suspension of Sai’s sentence, the Supreme Court abstained from delving into these aspects. Instead, it limited its order to ensuring the High Court processes Sai’s appeal without undue delay. “Ld. Counsel for petitioner is disputing the observations made in the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is always ready and willing to contest the appeal. We are not inclined to go into the said issue as the respondent (State) is willing for early disposal,” the Court observed.
