State Of U.P. vs Gayatri Prasad Prajapati on 15 October, 2020
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
State Of U.P. vs Gayatri Prasad Prajapati on 15 October, 2020
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 of 2020
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4337/2020)
STATE OF U.P. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
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.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Brief facts of the case necessary to decide this
Date: 2020.10.15
16:30:20 IST
Reason:
appeal are:-
1
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.
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
the High Court vide its order dated
26.05.2017 on an application filed by the
State of U.P.
3.3 Another Bail Application No.10101 of 2017
filed by the respondent was again rejected by
the High Court by order dated 14.12.2017.
2
3.4 The respondent was admitted for treatment in
King George Medical University, Lucknow
(hereinafter referred to as “K.G.M.U.”) on
03.05.2019. The respondent moved a Bail
Application No.5743 of 2019 before the High
Court. An application C.M. Case No. 99240 of
2019 was filed by the respondent on
19.08.2019 seeking interim bail on medical
grounds for a period of six months. The
respondent remained admitted in K.G.M.U. from
03.05.2019 to 17.01.2020 when he was
discharged. The High Court passed an order
on 05.03.2020 while hearing the bail
application as well as short term bail
application providing that applicant be sent
to the Department of Urology of K.G.M.U.,
Lucknow, where he should be examined/admitted
as per opinion of doctor concerned. However,
the admission/treatment of the applicant-
accused shall be under the supervision of
police authorities/team to be constituted by
the concerned authority.
3
3.5 The High Court further directed that
applicant-accused may be examined by a
medical board to be constituted by the Vice-
Chancellor, K.G.M.U., Lucknow and the said
report may be placed before the Court.
3.6 On 09.03.2020, the respondent was again
admitted in K.G.M.U. The respondent was
shifted on 04.06.2020 to the Sanjay Gandhi
Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as
“S.G.P.G.I.M.S.”) for specialised treatment,
S.G.P.G.I.M.S. being multi super-speciality
(a tertiary medical care super-speciality
hospital). The medical board evaluated the
respondent and submitted the report on
10.06.2020. An affidavit was also filed
before the High Court regarding the medical
reports prepared by S.G.P.G.I.M.S. and
K.G.M.U. On 29.06.2020, the respondent was
again shifted back to K.G.M.U. The High
Court by impugned order dated 03.09.2020
4
allowed the interim bail application of the
applicant on medical grounds.
3.7 The State of U.P. aggrieved by the order
dated 03.09.2020 has come up in this appeal.
4. We have heard Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the appellant. Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior counsel has appeared for the
respondent.
5. Learned ASG for the appellant submits that the
respondent was given due treatment in the K.G.M.U. as
well as in the super-speciality hospital
(S.G.P.G.I.M.S.). Relevant reports including the
report of medical board was placed before the High
Court reflecting on the medical condition of the
applicant and the treatment being given. The High
Court while passing the impugned order did not refer
to reports of the medical board, which was submitted
pursuant to the order of the High Court and reliance
was placed on the report of Senior Superintendant of
District Jail as well as on the medical opinion of
5
Department of Urology of K.G.M.U. dated 17.01.2020.
The subsequent materials, which were on the record
including the report of medical board had not been
adverted to or considered while passing the impugned
order. The appellant’s medical condition being under
control due to treatment given in aforesaid medical
institutions, there was no occasion to release the
respondent on interim bail. The respondent has been,
for the most of the period in last one year, in the
hospital alone. He submits that under one of the
conditions of interim bail [paragraph 27 (ii)], the
respondent shall ordinarily reside at a place of
residence, which indicates that the respondent is to
ordinarily reside at his residence and not for any
medical emergency. Shri Raju has also referred to
Clinical Summary dated 09.09.2020 of Department of
Urology, K.G. Medical University, Lucknow, which has
been brought on record by the respondent himself as
well as letter dated 05.10.2020 of the Department of
Urology, K.G. Medical University, which indicate that
the respondent has been advised to take tablets and
it is also mentioned that he can take treatment from
any super-speciality hospital in the country. By
6
subsequent letter dated 05.10.2020, he has been asked
to go to S.G.P.G.I.M.S., Lucknow, Neurology
Department for NCV testing. Shri Raju submits that
the State is providing full medical facilities and
treatment to the respondent and the High Court has
erred in granting interim bail on medical ground
without adverting to the medical reports submitted by
the K.G.M.U. and S.G.P.G.I.M.S.
6. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent refuting the submission
of the learned ASG for the appellant contends that
even if the offence alleged against the respondent is
a serious offence and respondent may have political
linkage but at present we are not looking at the
nature of offence. When a person is ill and he is
under prison, he requires a humane treatment. An
accused cannot be given a different treatment. The
respondent was being moved from one hospital to
another hospital, which was not by his own choice.
He has referred to the report of K.G.M.U., Clinical
Summary dated 04.06.2020 wherein it has been
mentioned that patient has been referred to
7
S.G.P.G.I.M.S. for further management. Clinical
Summary of K.G.M.U. filed at Pages 71-72 of the
counter affidavit has been referred to. Annexure A-
3 of the Additional Documents filed by the respondent
has been referred to in which K.G.M.U. has observed
that since NCV testing is not available in K.G.M.U.,
the patient is being referred to Neurology Department
of S.G.P.G.I.M.S., for the same. Dr. Dhawan submits
that at present, the respondent is in K.G.M.U. Dr.
Dhawan further submits that the respondent be
permitted to continue at K.G.M.U. and should not be
transferred to jail.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
8. In the present appeal, our consideration is
confined only to the interim bail, which has been
granted to the respondent by order dated 03.09.2020.
The Bail Application No. 5743 of 2019 being still
pending in the High Court, our considerations and
observations are only with respect to order granting
8
interim bail and shall have no bearing on the merits
of the bail application, which is pending
consideration before the High Court.
9. From the facts of the case, as noted above, it is
clear that on 03.05.2019, the respondent was admitted
in K.G.M.U. and after more than seven months
discharged on 17.01.2020. The provisional diagnosis
as mentioned in the Clinical Summary is as follows:-
“Provisional Diagnosis : UTI with DM with
HTN with Bamboo spine with seronegative
Spondylorthropathy.”
10. The respondent was advised taking of tablets,
follow up review in Urology OPD on every Monday and
was discharged on stable condition on 17.01.2020.
Under the orders of the High Court, the medical board
was constituted by Chief Medical Officer. The
medical board report dated 10.06.2020 has been
brought on record, the medical board report dated
10.06.2020 states:-
“To,
Chief Medical Officer,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
9
Respected Sir,
With reference to letter number मम ० चच० अ० /
2o19/6o72-5 dated 08/08/2020 and
instructions from Director, Dr. RML
Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow,
UP, we were nominated as members of
medical board under the chairmanship of
C.M.O. Lucknow. After closely going
through the medical records of Mr. Gayatri
Prajapati aged 54 years, male from
district jail hospital, Lucknow and King
George’s Medical University, Lucknow the
following observations were made:-
1.The patient is suffering from
type-2 diabetes mellitus, benign
prostate enlargement, renal
dysfunction, low back pain related
to seronegative
spondylorthropathy.
2.There is no major disparity in the
treatment of the patient from both
the hospitals and considering the
current reports, patient can
continue treatment at jail
hospital but in view of renal
dysfunction and seronagative
spondylorthropathy, consultation
from nephrologist and
orthopedician is advisable.
3.Patient needs control of blood
sugar under supervision of
endocrinologist.”
11. Before the High Court, an affidavit was also
filed by the State dated 12.06.2020 bringing on
record medical treatment report of S.G.P.G.I.M.S.
10
The affidavit clearly stated that S.G.P.G.I.M.S.,
Lucknow offers unmatchable and unsurpassable medical
expertise in numerous field and patients from far off
places come to S.G.P.G.I.M.S., Lucknow for availing
specialised medical treatment.
12. The High Court by the impugned order dated
03.09.2020 has directed for release of the respondent
on medical grounds, although the order runs in 23
pages but it is the paragraph 27 of the judgment,
which gives the reasoning for grant of interim bail.
Paragraph 27 is as follows:-
“27. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the
applicant’s medical condition, which is
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 Spondylorthropathy; proper
treatment is not available in K.G.M.U.
Hospital, Lucknow and doctors have advised
proper treatment from multiple super
specialties, at a tertiary care super
specialty hospital; 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 prosecutix and
her family members, this Court is persuaded
to grant the applicant, Gayatri Prasad
Prajapati, interim bail for a period of two
11
months from the date of his release,
subject to the following conditions:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
(ii) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior
permission of the trial court and
shall ordinarily reside at a place
of residence, as assured, far from
the place of residence of the
prosecutrix and her immediate
family; and the complete address
of such place shall be furnished
to the Jail Superintendent at the
time of release;
XXXXXXXXXXXXX”
13. The High Court in its judgment relies on
following:-
(a) Applicant’s medical condition, which is
affirmed by medical status report showing
that applicant is suffering from disease,
i.e., UTI with Diabetes mellitus with HTN
with Bamboo spine with seronegative
Spondylorthropathy;
(b) Proper treatment is not available in
K.G.M.U., Lucknow;
12
(c) Doctors have advised proper treatment from
multiple super specialities, at a tertiary
care super speciality hospital; and
(d) Threat to the applicant’s health in the
prevailing times of COVID-19 pandemic is real
and imminent.
14. The medical condition of the respondent, the
treatment given and various reports including the
report of medical board were on the record. The
S.G.P.G.I.M.S. is a super-speciality hospital where
the respondent has been referred for specified
purposes and report of S.G.P.G.I.M.S. has also been
brought on the record as Annexure P-10 alongwith the
letter dated 10.06.2020 addressed to Chief Medical
Superintendant, S.G.P.G.I.M.S., Lucknow. The medical
report of the respondent dated 10.06.2020 in final
evaluation states:-
“Final Evaluation
Glycemia : better controlled
Hypertension : well controlled
Pulmonary consult: Completed, advised
as per notes above
Urology work-up on- going.
13
15. The above report of the S.G.P.G.I.M.S., i.e., the
super-speciality hospital, which was on the record as
well as report of the medical board dated 10.06.2020,
which was brought in the notice of the High Court
have neither been considered nor referred to by the
High Court in the impugned order. When the
respondent was being given treatment in the super-
speciality 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.
Further, as per condition (ii) mentioned in paragraph
27, 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. 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
14
necessary to release the respondent on interim bail
on medical grounds.
16. Dr. Dhawan submits 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.
17. Learned counsel for both the parties have
referred to Clinical Summary dated 09.09.2020 as well
as the letter dated 05.10.2020 of K.G.M.U. referring
the respondent to S.G.P.G.I.M.S. for NCV testing.
18. 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
15
entire materials on record, has passed the impugned
order dated 03.09.2020, which is unsustainable.
19. In result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
order dated 03.09.2020. We may again make it clear
that observations made by us 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.
………………….J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
………………….J.
( R. SUBHASH REDDY )
………………….J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
October 15, 2020.
16