The Best Fluffy Pancakes recipe you will fall in love with. Full of tips and tricks to help you make the best pancakes.
1. Suspension of Sentence – Punjab and Haryana High Court (August 28, 2025)
- Order Pronounced by: The division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Deepinder Singh Nalwa, on August 28, 2025, ordered the suspension of Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj’s remaining life imprisonment sentence until his main appeal is decided. The court clarified that the order is a temporary relief and not an opinion on the original case’s merits.
- Key Grounds Cited by the Court:
- Debatable Medical Evidence: The court found the medical evidence to be “debatable issues”. While suffocation was initially cited as the cause of death, a medical board later identified it as pneumonia, a point the court found worthy of consideration.
- Witness Statements: The court noted that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased woman did not support the prosecution’s case. They stated that the death was due to a long-term illness, which weakened the prosecution’s narrative.
- Age and Time Served: The court considered Sant Rampal Ji’s advanced age of approximately 74 years and the significant period of time he has already spent in jail, which is over 10 years and 27 days. The court found this a suitable case for interim relief from a humanitarian perspective.
- Parity with Co-accused: The court also took into account that 13 of his co-accused have already been released on bail, raising a concern for “parity” and the need for similar relief.
- Statement by Justices Gill and Nalwa:The court’s decision was based on the premise that “if the evidence is debatable, the sentence cannot continue.” They concluded that with the accused being around 74 years old and having served a substantial sentence, and with key witnesses not supporting the prosecution, this was a fitting case for the suspension of the sentence.
2. Background – Previous Acquittals and Sentences
Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj has received judicial relief in several cases:
| Year | Case | Verdict |
| 2017 (August 29) | Wrongful confinement and obstruction of government work. | The Hisar court fully acquitted him in two cases (FIR 426 & 427) because the complainants and witnesses turned hostile. |
| 2021 (July 26) | Case under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. | The court acquitted him and four others as the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence. |
| 2022 (December 20) | 2006 shooting and land fraud case. | Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj was acquitted. |
| 2018 (Oct 11–16) | Two murder cases (FIR 429 and 430) from the 2014 Barwala ashram incident. | The Hisar Special Court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine under IPC Sections 302, 343, and 120-B. |
| 2025 (August 28) | The aforementioned sentence was suspended pending appeal. | The court granted this relief based on the grounds mentioned above, including the debatable medical evidence, his age, and the concept of parity. |
3. Arguments – Lawyers and Parties
- Defense Arguments:
- The long period of incarceration (over 10 years) was deemed unjust from a humanitarian standpoint.
- The defense argued for relief on the grounds of “parity,” since co-accused had already been granted bail.
- They claimed that the medical evidence was debatable and that the true cause of death might have been pneumonia, not suffocation.
- A lack of evidence was cited, as eyewitnesses (such as the deceased’s husband and mother-in-law) did not support the prosecution’s narrative.
- Prosecution Arguments:
- The prosecution alleged that women were confined in a room at the Barwala ashram, and their deaths were caused by suffocation.
- However, the High Court left this assertion open for review due to the contradictions in medical evidence and witness statements.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to suspend Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj’s sentence is a significant development in his long-running legal battles. The ruling, while not an acquittal, provides interim relief based on humanitarian, legal, and evidentiary grounds, including his age, the time served, and the debatable nature of the evidence. It underscores that truth and justice, despite being a struggle, will ultimately prevail in the judicial process.
