Explore the intricate legal analysis in a recent case involving a contentious medical bail application. The court’s detailed examination of medical reports and hospital treatments sheds light on the complexities of balancing legal requirements with considerations of an accused’s health. Stay tuned for an insightful exploration of the court’s decision-making process in this case.
Facts
- Applicant granted interim bail on medical grounds for two months.
- Applicant to be sent to Department of Urology at K.G.M.U., Lucknow for examination/admission.
- Admission/treatment under supervision of police authorities.
- No mention of medical board reports in the impugned order.
- Reliance placed on report of Senior Superintendent of District Jail and Department of Urology, K.G.M.U.
- Applicant to be examined by a medical board to be constituted by Vice-Chancellor, K.G.M.U.
- Respondent admitted for treatment in K.G.M.U. on 03.05.2019
- First FIR filed after order passed by Court on 17.02.2017
- High Court orders for release and bail rejected on multiple occasions
- Respondent granted bail by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow but later cancelled
- Application for interim bail on medical grounds filed on 19.08.2019
- Accused in case Crime No.29 of 2017 under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act
- Shifted to S.G.P.G.I.M.S. for specialized treatment on 04.06.2020
- Medical evaluation report submitted on 10.06.2020
- Affidavit filed regarding medical reports by S.G.P.G.I.M.S. and K.G.M.U.
- Respondent discharged from K.G.M.U. on 17.01.2020 after being admitted from 03.05.2019
Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines
Arguments
- Appellant argues that respondent received adequate treatment in K.G.M.U. and S.G.P.G.I.M.S.
- Appellant mentions that respondent’s medical condition was under control due to the treatment received at the medical institutions.
- Appellant asserts that the respondent has been mostly in the hospital, receiving medical facilities and treatment.
- Appellant criticizes the High Court’s decision to grant interim bail without considering medical reports from K.G.M.U. and S.G.P.G.I.M.S.
- Appellant highlights that relevant medical reports, including those from the medical board, were presented to the High Court but were not adequately considered.
- The respondent was being moved from one hospital to another hospital, not by his own choice.
- The learned senior counsel for the respondent emphasized the importance of treating an accused humanely, especially when they are ill and in prison.
- Dr. Dhawan argued against transferring the respondent to jail and requested for him to continue treatment at K.G.M.U.
- The Clinical Summary of K.G.M.U. mentioned that the patient needed further management at S.G.P.G.I.M.S.
- Referral to the Neurology Department of S.G.P.G.I.M.S. was based on the unavailability of NCV testing at K.G.M.U.
- Currently, the respondent is receiving treatment at K.G.M.U.
Also Read: Analyzing Interference with Acquittal in Legal Conviction Case
Analysis
- High Court granted interim bail to Gayatri Prasad Prajapati for a period of two months due to his health condition and the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Conditions of the bail included not leaving the country without permission and residing far from the prosecutrix’s family.
- Medical reports confirmed Prajapati’s ailments like UTI, Diabetes, and Bamboo spine.
- Treatment was being provided at S.G.P.G.I.M.S. and K.G.M.U. hospitals, with no indication of inadequacy.
- The High Court’s order for interim bail was based on the medical board’s recommendations and the unavailability of proper treatment at K.G.M.U. Lucknow.
- No major disparity was found in the treatment between hospitals, and continued care was advised, with consultation from nephrologists and orthopedicians.
Also Read: Judicial Review on Sentence and Compensation in Criminal Case
Decision
- Observations made in this order are only for deciding this appeal
- Observations shall have no bearing on the merits of Bail Application No.5743 of 2019 pending before the High Court
- The appeal is allowed and the order dated 03.09.2020 is set aside
Case Title: STATE OF U.P. Vs. GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI (2020 INSC 601)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000686-000686 / 2020
