World
India
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, leader of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, has been granted a 30-day parole.
His legal representative, Jitendra Khurana, emphasized that the parole is a legal provision available to all prisoners and urged that it not be linked to political developments.
“Every prisoner has the right to request parole under the law. This 30-day parole was granted accordingly and has no connection to any political events or elections,” Khurana stated. He further clarified that the parole request included a visit to the Dera Sacha Sauda ashram, which was approved.
Following his release, Ram Rahim reached the ashram in Sirsa earlier in the day.
Khurana also explained the broader legal context for such decisions. “Under the law, parole can be granted for up to 70 days in a year, while furlough allows for 21 days. Ram Rahim’s current parole fully complies with these legal provisions,” he said.
This release comes against the backdrop of ongoing legal battles. On January 3, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and four others in response to a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition. The plea challenges the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to acquit Ram Rahim and his co-accused in the 2002 murder case of Ranjit Singh, a former manager of the sect.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, called for responses from all the accused. The case was subsequently assigned to a bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi, which had previously issued related notices. “Issue notice and tag this matter with the pending special leave petition before Justice Bela Trivedi’s bench,” the court stated.
Currently serving a 20-year sentence for rape and other crimes, Ram Rahim’s parole approvals often draw public attention and debate. However, his legal team has consistently maintained that these approvals are entirely lawful and not influenced by external factors.
The parole has reignited discussions about the intersection of legal rights and public perception, highlighting the delicate balance courts must maintain in high-profile cases.
