The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the interim bail granted to former minister from Uttar Pradesh, Gayatri Prajapati. .The Allahabad High Court had granted the interim bail for two months to the rape accused on medical grounds..The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, however, set aside the interim bail noting that the High Court erred in granting the same as all the material on recocrd was not considered by the High Court..As regards Prajapati's arguments of having a medical condition and needing medical attention, the Court noted that adequate medical care was being provided to Prajapati by the jail authorities. As such, the two-month interim bail was not required, the Court ruled.The High Court's order did not record its satisfaction with Prajapati's submission that he was allegedly not getting proper treatment and needed institutional medical care. Such a finding should be recorded while enlarging a person on bail citing medical grounds, the Supreme Court noted. However, the High Court's order was lacking on this aspect.."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," the Supreme Court said..During the course of the hearing, it was argued on behalf of Prajapati that regardless of the gravity of the offence alleged against a person, every accused is required to be treated humanely especially when suffering from an ailment. Every prisoner is entitled to medical treatment while under incarceration, it was argued..The State of Uttar Pradesh had argued that Prajapati was being given proper medical treatment and that there were no gaps or shortcomings in giving him requisite medical care..The Court said that the material on record shows that Prajapati is being given due medical care and that the High Court proceeded to pass the order for interim bail without considering these materials on record. It recorded in its judgment,.The Supreme Court proceeded to rule, ."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.".As such, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the High Court's order and set aside the order granting interim bail to Prajapati..Prajapati is an accused in a gang-rape case and had been in custody since March of 2017. He was earlier granted bail by a Sessions Court which was subsequently cancelled by the High Court. Interim bail on medical grounds was granted later by the High Court on September 3, this year. This bail now stands cancelled. Currently, another bail plea by Prajapati remains pending before the High Court..Read Judgment:
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the interim bail granted to former minister from Uttar Pradesh, Gayatri Prajapati. .The Allahabad High Court had granted the interim bail for two months to the rape accused on medical grounds..The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, however, set aside the interim bail noting that the High Court erred in granting the same as all the material on recocrd was not considered by the High Court..As regards Prajapati's arguments of having a medical condition and needing medical attention, the Court noted that adequate medical care was being provided to Prajapati by the jail authorities. As such, the two-month interim bail was not required, the Court ruled.The High Court's order did not record its satisfaction with Prajapati's submission that he was allegedly not getting proper treatment and needed institutional medical care. Such a finding should be recorded while enlarging a person on bail citing medical grounds, the Supreme Court noted. However, the High Court's order was lacking on this aspect.."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," the Supreme Court said..During the course of the hearing, it was argued on behalf of Prajapati that regardless of the gravity of the offence alleged against a person, every accused is required to be treated humanely especially when suffering from an ailment. Every prisoner is entitled to medical treatment while under incarceration, it was argued..The State of Uttar Pradesh had argued that Prajapati was being given proper medical treatment and that there were no gaps or shortcomings in giving him requisite medical care..The Court said that the material on record shows that Prajapati is being given due medical care and that the High Court proceeded to pass the order for interim bail without considering these materials on record. It recorded in its judgment,.The Supreme Court proceeded to rule, ."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.".As such, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the High Court's order and set aside the order granting interim bail to Prajapati..Prajapati is an accused in a gang-rape case and had been in custody since March of 2017. He was earlier granted bail by a Sessions Court which was subsequently cancelled by the High Court. Interim bail on medical grounds was granted later by the High Court on September 3, this year. This bail now stands cancelled. Currently, another bail plea by Prajapati remains pending before the High Court..Read Judgment: