The Supreme Court of India has declined to intervene in the decision of the Gujarat High Court, which refused to suspend the life sentence of Narayan Sai, the son of infamous self-styled godman, Asaram Bapu. Sai was convicted in 2019 for the rape of a former disciple in a case dating back to 2013. A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale issued directives for the Gujarat High Court to expedite the appeal process related to Sai’s conviction, urging a verdict within three months.
“We request the High Court to make an effort to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 months,” the Supreme Court stated, emphasizing the need for cooperation from both the petitioner and the State. The Supreme Court further noted that should the appeal not be resolved within the stipulated timeframe, Sai could again seek relief from the apex court.
The legal proceedings against Narayan Sai relate to a 2013 accusation of rape by a former follower. In April 2019, a Surat sessions court sentenced Sai to life imprisonment. His subsequent appeal against the conviction remains pending in the Gujarat High Court. On May 4, 2026, the High Court dismissed Sai’s fifth attempt to secure interim bail and suspend his sentence pending the appeal’s resolution.
The High Court determined that Sai’s chance of acquittal was not sufficient to warrant bail and noted that a conviction for such a grave offense diminished the presumption of innocence. It also highlighted that Sai’s own actions, including repeated bail applications that he later withdrew, contributed to delays in hearing the appeal.
This decision by the Gujarat High Court was contested before the Supreme Court, with Senior Advocate N Hariharan representing Narayan Sai. During the proceedings, Hariharan argued that despite seeking an expedited hearing, the appeal remained unheard, and asserted that the allegations did not hold upon scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court encouraged Sai to present his case based on merit before the High Court.
More Read
“Be confident and argue that. We will ask the High Court to do it,” remarked the Supreme Court, reiterating its directive for a timely resolution by the High Court without delving into the merits of the case themselves.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the legal principle that post-conviction, the presumption of innocence is significantly altered, especially in cases of serious offenses such as rape. While addressing procedural delays, the court maintained its focus on ensuring a swift judicial process without compromising the substantive examination by the lower courts.
