Gujarat HC Dismisses Narayan Sais Plea to Suspend Life Sentence in Surat Rape Case

The Gujarat High Court in May 2026 dismissed the plea filed by Narayan Sai, son of self-styled godman Asaram, seeking suspension of his life sentence in the 2013 Surat rape case. A bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R.T. Vachhani rejected the application, observing that Sai was not interested in the expeditious hearing of his appeal against conviction and had instead adopted delay tactics. The dismissal means Sai will continue to serve his life sentence while his appeal against the 2019 conviction remains pending before the High Court.

Background of the Surat Rape Case

The case dates back to 2013, when two sisters lodged complaints of rape and sexual exploitation against Asaram and his son Narayan Sai. The sisters alleged that they were sexually assaulted at an ashram run by the family in Surat, Gujarat. While Asaram was tried separately in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Narayan Sai was tried by a sessions court in Surat. After a protracted trial, the Surat sessions court convicted Narayan Sai and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2019. The conviction was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by other evidence including medical records, witness statements, and documentary evidence relating to the functioning of the ashram. Sai challenged the conviction before the Gujarat High Court, and his appeal remains pending.

What Narayan Sai Argued Before the High Court

Sai's legal team argued that his conviction should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal on the ground that there were several contradictions, revisions, and improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix that the trial court had not adequately addressed. The defence contended that the inconsistencies in the victim's statements raised sufficient doubt about the reliability of her testimony and that the trial court's judgment was likely to be reversed on appeal. Sai sought both suspension of the conviction and bail pending the hearing of his appeal, arguing that he had already spent several years in custody and that the appeal could take considerable time to conclude.

Why the Gujarat High Court Rejected the Plea

The bench of Justices Vora and Vachhani dismissed the application on the critical finding that Sai himself was not interested in pursuing the expeditious hearing of his appeal. The Court observed that despite the appeal being pending for years, the defence had not demonstrated urgency in pressing for its hearing and had instead adopted tactics that contributed to delay. Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 417 of the BNSS), an appellate court may suspend the execution of a sentence or order and release the appellant on bail pending the appeal. However, this power is discretionary and courts exercise it with caution, particularly in cases involving serious offences like rape where the sentence is life imprisonment. The Supreme Court has held in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and other cases that suspension of sentence is not a matter of right and depends on factors including the gravity of the offence, the strength of the prosecution case, and the appellant's conduct.

Legal Framework for Suspension of Sentence During Appeal

The law on suspension of sentence during appeal requires the appellate court to consider several factors. First, whether the appeal is likely to succeed based on a prima facie assessment of the grounds raised. Second, whether the appellant will abscond or tamper with evidence if released. Third, the nature and gravity of the offence, with courts being particularly reluctant to suspend sentences in cases involving offences against women, children, or offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Fourth, the impact of release on the victim and witnesses. In rape cases, courts have consistently taken a strict view, recognising the trauma suffered by the victim and the societal interest in ensuring that serious sentences are not routinely suspended. The Gujarat High Court's refusal to suspend Sai's sentence is consistent with this approach and sends a clear signal that convicted persons cannot expect relief when they themselves are not diligent in pursuing their appeals.

Key Takeaways

The Gujarat High Court's dismissal reinforces the principle that suspension of sentence in serious criminal cases is not automatic and that the appellant's own conduct is a relevant factor. Narayan Sai's adoption of delay tactics while simultaneously seeking the benefit of suspension worked against him. The decision also confirms the judicial trend of taking a strict approach towards suspension of sentences in sexual offence cases, particularly where the conviction is based on the victim's testimony corroborated by other evidence. For criminal defence practitioners, the case underscores the importance of demonstrating genuine diligence in pursuing the appeal when seeking suspension of sentence, as any appearance of delay or lack of interest will weigh heavily against the application.