)
The defence sought more time to produce some affidavits and evidences in support of its arguments on the bail application.
Admitting the plea, Justice Nirmal Jeet Kaur deferred the hearing till October 1. The court had on Monday deferred the hearing till today.
Prosecution counsel AAG Anand Purohit told the court that the FIR and the statements of the girl under sections 161 (examination of witnesses by police) and 164 (recording of confessions and statements) of CrPC are identical, to prove that there was nothing like fabrication in the FIR.
When defence counsel Ram Jethmalani sought both the statements, the court said the statement under section 161 could not be provided as the investigation was still pending but the statement under 164 could be obtained by applying to the court.
The prosecution continued with the spot verification and identification by the girl, establishing the scene of crime and the conspiracy by referring to the telephonic communication during April-August among Shilpi (confidant of Asaram), Shiva (aide of Asaram) and Prakash (cook).
It also argued in the court that Asaram admitted to police that the girl and her parents were called at Manai ashram at his behest and he was there with the girl in the room.
Referring to the defence terming the girl to be suffering from chronic mental illness, the prosecution argued that she has been a meritorious student.
"Has she been mentally ill and fantasized about man, she would not have been a meritorious student of gurukul and would have had some medical report to this effect," the prosecution argued.
On the defence's plea to continue arguments, the court asked it and prosecution whether they want so.
Finally, admitting the plea of defence to seek more time to come up with some affidavits and evidences, the court deferred the hearing till October 1.
