first_imgNews Updates[Gang Rape Case] SC Sets Aside Interim Bail Granted To Gayatri Prajapati By Allahabad HC Sanya Talwar15 Oct 2020 6:21 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the order of interim bail granted by Allahabad High Court to former Uttar Pradesh Minister, Gayatri Prajapati who is facing charges in a rape case. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & MR Shah observed that due medical care is being given to the Prajapati and that the order passed by the High Court is “unsustainable” as it has…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the order of interim bail granted by Allahabad High Court to former Uttar Pradesh Minister, Gayatri Prajapati who is facing charges in a rape case. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & MR Shah observed that due medical care is being given to the Prajapati and that the order passed by the High Court is “unsustainable” as it has not considered entire materials on record.The top court has stated that Prajapati was being given due medical care by jail authorities & hence, bail which was granted to him for 2 month wasn’t required.”There was no satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds.”- Supreme CourtThe Court has further observed that in the medical treatment given to Prajapati, there were no shortcomings by SGPGIMS which is a super specialty hospital and that, even as on date medical care was being provided to him.”When the respondent was being given treatment in the superspeciality hospital, i.e., S.G.P.G.I.M.S. as recommended by K.G.M.U., we fail to see as to what were the shortcomings in the medical treatment offered to respondent, which could have been the basis for grant of interim bail on medical ground…. Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent, which is apparent from the additional documents filed as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 alongwith the application dated 10.10.2020. The High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2020, which is unsustainable.”Furthermore, the court has made it clear that the observations made in this order are only for deciding this appeal and shall have no bearing on the merits of the Bail Application No.5743 of 2019, which is still pending before the High Court for consideration.The Allahabad High Court on had on September 3, granted bail to Former Uttar Pradesh minister Gayatri Pradesh Prajapati, in connection to a gang rape case registered against him.He was granted bail on a personal bond in the sum of Rupees Five Lakh with two sureties of Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.On September 20, Supreme Court had stayed the short-term bail in the appeal filed by State of Uttar Pradesh against the September 3 Allahabad High Court order.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju had led arguments on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh with the premise that the Hon’ble High Court had erroneously granted a short-term bail of two months to the politician accused in a POCSO case solely on medical grounds, ignoring that the Accused has throughout been treated in premier national medical Institutes KGMC / SGPGI.Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan had argued that that every person, who is accused of an offence, even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the prison authorities. There can be no two views with regard to above. Humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. Furthermore, a prisoner, who is suffering from an ailment, has to be given due treatment and care while in prison. In its appeal, State of UP had contended, challenging the grant of bail, that the politician is a prominent minister and wields considerable influence in the “environs of powers” and has hoodwinked authorities, even after the registration of FIR by victim.”That the Respondent Accused was a very prominent Minister in the erstwhile government and wielded considerable influence in the environs of powers. The Political position of the accused was so dominating that a First Information Report against him, came to be registered, only after the victim approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Writ Petition. Even after the registration of FIR, the Respondent accused hoodwinked the investigating agency for a considerable period of time but ultimately surrendered in April, 2017″Prajapati is an undertrial in Case Crime No.29 of 2017 dated 18.02.2017 under Section 376(D), 354A(I), 504, 506, 509 of I.P.C. and Section 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at police Station Gautampalli, District Lucknow.Case against Prajapati:Notably, it was alleged by a Chitrakoot-based woman that Prajapati and his six aides had gang-raped her and attempted to outrage the modesty of her minor daughter when he was a minister in Uttar Pradesh.In 2017, after the Uttar Pradesh police denied to register an FIR against Prajapati, a PIL petition was filed by the woman in the Supreme Court and had sought the court’s direction for lodging an FIR.Consequently, the Supreme Court had ordered the UP police to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against him in connection with cases of alleged gang rape and sexual harassment.However, the woman, who accused the former minister of rape and filed the aforesaid PIL, had later withdrawn her statement by submitting an application in the special MP-MLA court in Prayagraj in 2019. The woman retracted her statement in court saying that the former minister did not rape her but two of his aides did.Notably, in 2019, the CBI had registered two FIRs in connection with the mining scam in Uttar Pradesh and had named Prajapati and four IAS officers. The FIRs were registered as the central probe agency conducted search operations at 12 locations in the state.Click Here To Download OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *