[Gang Rape Case] Allahabad HC Grants 2-Month Interim Bail Former UP Minister Gayatri Prajapati On Medical Grounds [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates[Gang Rape Case] Allahabad HC Grants 2-Month Interim Bail Former UP Minister Gayatri Prajapati On Medical Grounds [Read Order] Sparsh Upadhyay4 Sep 2020 7:10 AMShare This – xThe Allahabad High Court on Thursday (03rd September) granted bail to Former Uttar Pradesh minister Gayatri Pradesh Prajapati, in connection to a gang rape case registered against him.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…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 Allahabad High Court on Thursday (03rd September) granted bail to Former Uttar Pradesh minister Gayatri Pradesh Prajapati, in connection to a gang rape case registered against him.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.The bench of Justice Ved Prakash Vaish granted interim bail to Prajapati taking into account his medical condition, which was confirmed by the medical status report.It may be noted that Prajapati was in jail since March 2017; however, he had also undergone treatment at King George’s Medical University & S.G.P.G.I. (both situated in Lucknow) for multiple health issues while he was in judicial custody.Now he has been 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.Case against PrajapatiNotably, 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.The Arguments put forth by the CounselsThe counsel for the applicant submitted before the court that the applicant was in judicial custody since 15th March 2017 and had been falsely implicated in the present case. It was argued that the prosecutrix and her daughters were examined before the trial court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.The counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the investigation has already been completed, charge sheet has been filed, statement of prosecutrix and doctors were recorded where they have not supported the prosecution’s case.Significantly, it was argued that the applicant is suffering from various serious diseases and is admitted in hospital since 03rd May 2019 and not getting proper treatment.It was submitted that he remained admitted in K.G.M.U., Lucknow from 03rd May, 2019 to 17th January 2020 and again the applicant was admitted in K.G.M.U. Hospital, Lucknow on 09.03.2020, he was shifted to S.G.P.G.I. on 04th June, 2020 and was thereafter shifted to K.G.M.U., Lucknow on 29th June, 2020 and since then he is admitted in K.G.M.U, Lucknow.Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant requested that the applicant may be released on interim bail for getting proper treatment.Adjournment was requested by learned Addl. Advocate General for the State for addressing arguments on the application for regular bail.Learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that arguments on the application for interim bail may be heard.The Observation of the courtThe court acknowledged the fact that the applicant was suffering from various diseases and that it was also not disputed that the statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded in the matter.The court also took into account the report of Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Lucknow, dated 09th January 2020 which states that the applicant has multiple ailments which require treatment from multiple super specialities, at a tertiary care super-speciality hospital.The court noted (taking into account the aforesaid report) that such treatment is not possible in Jail Hospital and it is not possible to determine how much time it will take for complete improvement; presently patient is not in a position to have movements.The court relied on the case of ‘Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd.’, Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2016, 2020 SCC Online SC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted interim bail on the ground that parents of the applicant have tested positive for Covid-19.In this context, the court said,”Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and the applicant’s medical condition, which was confirmed by the medical status report, it shows that the applicant is suffering from disease i.e. UTI with Diabetes mellitus with HTN with Bamboo spine with seronegative Spondyloarthropathy; proper treatment is not available in K.G.M.U. Hospital, Lucknow and doctors have advised proper treatment from multiple super specialities, at a tertiary care super speciality hospital.” (emphasis supplied)The bench further said,”Further threat to the applicant’s health in the prevailing times of Covid-19 pandemic is real and imminent, and in view of the assurances extended on behalf of the applicant that he shall not apprehend or influence the prosecutrix and her family members, this Court is persuaded to grant the applicant, Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, interim bail for a period of two months from the date of his release”.Prajapati has been asked not to leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and he has to ordinarily reside at a place of residence, as assured, far from the place of residence of the prosecutrix and her immediate family.Further, Prajapati was asked to furnish his cell phone number on which the applicant may be contacted and that the number be kept switch on all time.Prajapati has been ordered to surrender his passport, if any, to the Jail Superintendent. Upon expiry of the period of interim bail, he will have to surrender before the concerned trial court/ Superintendent Jail.The Bail Application No.5743 of 2019 has been posted for hearing in the week commencing 28.09.2020.It may be noted that in 2017, Allahabad High Court had stayed the bail granted to Gayatri Prajapati in this rape case.The High Court had also reportedly suspended special judge of POCSO Court Om Prakash Mishra who granted bail to Gayatri Prajapati.The Special Court Judge had granted bail to Gayatri Prajapati and the UP Government had challenged the same before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court had stayed the order.Case Details:Case Title: Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home LucknowCase No.: C.M. Case No.99240 of 2019/ Bail No.5743 of 2019Quorum: Justice Ved Prakash VaishAppearance: Advocates Rukmini Bobde, Sushil Kumar Singh, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Anand Mani Tripathi, Avinash Chandra, Shashank Kunwar, Sushil Kumar Singh, Vivek Tiwari & Roshni Shukla (for the Applicant); Additional Advocate General Vinod Sahi, Addl. G.A. Diwakar Singh (for the respondent-state); G.A., Bijay Raj Verma, Advocate Rajiv Kumar Rai, Advocate Sachida Nand (for the opposite party)Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Storylast_img read more

Read More