STATE OF U.P. versus GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 15-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
STATE OF U.P.
v.
GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI
(Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2020)
OCTOBER 15, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Bail: Interim bail granted on medical grounds – Respondent
was a former minister and accused for offence u/ss.376D/376/511/
504/506 r/w s.3/4 of POCSO Act – His bail was rejected – He was
admitted for treatment in hospital (K.G.M.U.) and remained admitted
from 3.5.2019 to 17.1.2020 – On 9.3.2020, he was again admitted
in  K.G.M.U. – On 4.6.2020, he was shifted to super specialty
hospital (S.G.P.G.I.M.S.) – Medical Board evaluated the condition
of respondent and submitted report – On 29.6.2020, respondent
was again shifted back to K.G.M.U. – On 3.9.2020, High Court by
impugned order allowed the interim bail on medical grounds for a
period of two months – Appeal by the State – Held: It is clear that
on 3.5.2019, respondent was admitted in K.G.M.U. and was
discharged after more than seven months – He was advised taking
of tablets, follow up review in Urology OPD and was discharged
on his stable condition –  The report of Medical Board constituted
under the orders of High Court was that there was no major disparity
in the treatment of patient from both the hospitals and considering
the medical reports, he can continue treatment at jail hospital –
Before the High Court, an affidavit was filed by the State bringing
on record medical treatment report of S.G.P.G.I.M.S. which stated
that the super specialty hospital offer unmatchable and
unsurpassable medical expertise in numerous field and patients from
far off places come to S.G.P.G.I.M.S. for availing specialised medical
treatment – The report of the S.G.P.G.I.M.S., as well as report of the
medical board which were brought in the notice of the High Court,
were neither considered nor referred to by the High Court in the
impugned order – When the respondent was being given treatment
in S.G.P.G.I.M.S. as recommended by K.G.M.U., there did not appear
to be any shortcomings in the medical treatment offered to
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 959
959
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
respondent, which could have been the basis for grant of interim
bail on medical ground – There was no satisfaction recorded by
High Court that treatment offered to respondent was not adequate
and he required any further treatment by any particular medical
institute for which it was necessary to release the respondent on
interim bail on medical grounds – Further, as per condition
mentioned in interim order, the High Court contemplated that
respondent shall ordinarily reside at a place of residence, as assured,
far from the place of residence of the prosecutrix and her immediate
family, thus, the contemplation was that respondent shall reside at
his residence – High Court, without considering the entire materials
on record, passed the impugned order which is unsustainable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
686 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail No. 5743
of 2019.
S.V. Raju, ASG, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Garima
Prashad, Abhinav Agarwal, Ms. Sairica S. Raju, A. Venkatesh, Guntur
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Aviral Kapoor, Ms. Riya Dhingra,
Avinash, Vishal Prasad, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 03.09.2020
passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, by which
the respondent has been granted interim bail on medical grounds for a
period of two months while directing listing of the regular Bail Application
No. 5743 of 2019 in the week commencing from 28.09.2020 for hearing.
3. Brief facts of the case necessary to decide this appeal are:-
3.1
The respondent, a former minister in the State of U.P. is an
accused in case Crime No.29 of 2017 under Sections
376(D)/376/511/ 504/506 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4
of POCSO Act, Police Station Gautam Palli, District
Lucknow.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
3.2
The first information report was registered against the
respondent after an order was passed by this Court on
17.02.2017 in a Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 160 of 2016 filed by
the complainant. The respondent was granted bail by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide order
dated 25.04.2017, which bail was cancelled before the
respondent could be released from the jail by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.