This order does NOT decide the merits of the challenge to the Gujarat High Court's 30 September 2026 order in CRLMA(TB) No. 3/2026 denying temporary bail. It records only that counsel for the petitioner did not want to press the petition and dismisses it as not pressed. The High Court's denial of temporary bail is neither affirmed nor reversed on its merits, and the order lays down no ratio.
- Case
- Ashumal @ Asharam v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- J.B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran
- Case numbers
- SLP(Crl) No. 19150/2026
- Outcome
- Order of 14 October 2026 dismissing SLP(Crl) No. 19150/2026 as not pressed on counsel's statement. The petition never reached the leave stage; no question of special leave was decided.
SLP(Crl) No. 19150/2026 dismissed as not pressed on counsel's statement
On 14 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India disposed of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 19150 of 2026, filed by Ashumal @ Asharam against the State of Gujarat and another, by dismissing it as 'not pressed'. The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran in Court No. 5.
The Court's one-page record of proceedings contains two operative paragraphs. In the first, the Court records: 'The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not want to press this petition.' In the second, it states: 'The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.' No further direction, observation or reason was recorded.
What the order puts on record: the impugned High Court order, the parties, the counsel and the IA
The order's header places the petition in its procedural setting: the special leave petition arises 'out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-09-2026 in CRLMA(TB) No. 3/2026 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad'. CRLMA(TB) is a criminal miscellaneous application seeking temporary bail — the relief the High Court declined, which the petitioner carried in special leave to the Supreme Court.
The parties are Ashumal @ Asharam, the petitioner, and the State of Gujarat and another, the respondents. The petitioner was represented by Advocate-on-Record Nishant Bishnoi (AOR No. 3290) and Advocates Srishti Prabhakar, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Raghav Khanna, Dhananjay Mishra and Siddharth Bishnoi. The State was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, with Advocate-on-Record Swati Ghildiyal and Advocate Sonakshi Sinha. One interlocutory application stood on the file — IA No. 307941/2026, seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment. The order is digitally signed by Court Master Harpreet Kaur at 17:12:57 IST on 15 October 2026.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: what 'dismissed as not pressed' means — and what it does not
A petition 'not pressed' is one the petitioner chooses not to argue. The Court accepts the withdrawal at the threshold and the petition dies without any adjudication. 'Dismissed as not pressed' is the formal record of that death: the petition is closed, but no legal question is answered and no finding is made.
This matters for two reasons. First, the Gujarat High Court's 30 September 2026 denial of temporary bail stands exactly as it stood — it is not affirmed, not modified and not reversed. Second, the Supreme Court has said nothing about the principles that govern temporary bail, interim bail or regular bail, so the order cannot be cited for any proposition about bail law. A later petitioner cannot quote this order for the idea that the Supreme Court disapproved of temporary bail, any more than the petitioner himself can quote it for approval.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: the SLP route — Article 136's discretionary doorway
A Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 is not an appeal of right. The Supreme Court grants leave at its discretion where a substantial question of law arises or where grave injustice is shown; the petition itself is only the request for that discretion. Here the petition never reached the leave stage — it was withdrawn before any question of special leave could be decided — so the order contains no view on whether leave would have been granted or what a grant would have entailed.
Students often confuse 'dismissed as not pressed' with 'dismissed after hearing'. The difference is the difference between a door never knocked on and a door opened and closed: in the first case, the Court has nothing to say about what lies behind it.
What the order does not decide — and the takeaway for law students
The order decides nothing about whether the Gujarat High Court was right to deny temporary bail, nothing about the petitioner's underlying conviction or custody, and nothing about the legal standards for temporary bail. It is a two-paragraph withdrawal record.
For law students, the compact lessons are: (1) 'not pressed' is a client-side decision recorded by counsel, and the court merely gives it effect — the order cannot be cited for any legal proposition; (2) the exemption application on the file (IA No. 307941/2026, seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment) is a routine filing-stage accommodation that fell away with the petition, exactly as pending applications fall when a petition is withdrawn; and (3) reading an order's header — impugned order, court, date, case number — is the first skill in reading litigation backwards from the apex court to the forum where the dispute was actually decided.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The petition was 'dismissed as not pressed' rather than dismissed on merits. What does this distinction mean for the legal questions raised against the High Court's temporary-bail order, and why does it matter for future litigation?
- The special leave petition arose 'out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-09-2026 in CRLMA(TB) No. 3/2026 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad'. What is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal), which constitutional provision creates it, and what stage of the process was this petition at when it was not pressed?
- One interlocutory application — IA No. 307941/2026, seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment — stood on the file. What purpose do such exemption applications serve, and what happened to it when the petition was dismissed as not pressed?
