SC Issues Notice To UP Police On Ex-Minister Gayatri Prajapati's Plea For Regular Bail In Rape Case

SC Issues Notice To UP Police On Ex-Minister Gayatri Prajapati

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice AK Sikri has issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh police on a petition filed by Ex- minister Gayatri Prajapati seeking regular bail in a rape case.

Prajapati, who was a minister during Akhilesh Yadav has challenged the Allahabad High Court’s December 14, 2017 order denying him the regular bail.

Prajapati’s counsel termed the case “false” and told the bench that his client has been in jail since March last year. He had also lost the ministership due to the case but the high court denied him the bail.

The bench issued notice to the UP government which was received by state government counsel Aishwarya Bhati and posted the matter for March 16.

The bail application will be listed along with the petition filed by him for quashing of the charges against him

In the bail plea, filed through advocate Gaurav Agrawal, the petitioner said the allegations are baseless and due to change of the government in the state, the police was interested to see him in jail.

Prajapati said the Allahabad High Court in May last year had permitted him to move a fresh bail application before the trial court.

“After submission of chargesheet, the Petitioner (Prajapati) applied for regular bail afresh which was rejected by trial court on 27.09.2017. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court by way of bail application on 03.10.2017”, which the high court had rejected on December 14 last year.

The petitioner has raised the following questions in the SLP.

I) Is not the High Court in error of law in declining regular bail to the Petitioner when the Petitioner has already served custody of more than 10 months, the investigation is complete and chargesheet has already been filed?

II) Is not the High Court in error of law in declining regular bail to the Petitioner when there is no chance of Petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence or adversely affecting the trial of the case?

III) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the case set up by the informant of alleged rape by the Petitioner was completely unbelievable and the Petitioner has been falsely implicated for political reasons?

IV) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the allegations regarding alleged sexual intercourse was made by the informant for the first time, 3 years after the alleged incident, which itself shows that the allegation was false?

V) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the allegation was difficult to believe considering that not even the date and time of the alleged incident was mentioned and further the reason given for delay in making the said allegation was completely unsubstantiated, unbelievable and false?

VI) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the allegation made by the informant about alleged sexual misconduct by the Petitioner qua her minor daughter Ananya was not supported by her said daughter in her Section 164 CrPC statement?

VII) Is not the High Court in error of law in incorrectly accepting the oral statement made by the Government Advocate that sexual assault was alleged against both minor daughters of the informant, when this was not even prosecution story or allegation far less there being any material to support the allegation?

VIII) Is not the High Court in error of law in believing the incorrect statement made by the advocate for the State that the one of the daughters of the informant had suffered mentally due to the alleged sexual assault on her when this was not even the allegation and there is no material at all to substantiate the said allegation?

IX) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to appreciate that the victim Ananya has clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC that she was not suffering from any disease, thus the entire drama of admission in AIIMS was to prejudice the Petitioner and the High Court has incorrectly accepted the oral statement?

X) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the informant had made substantial improvements in her version from time to time and there were contradictions and infirmities in her statement, which clearly shows false implication?

XI) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that the mobile phone record of the Petitioner and the informant clearly show that the allegation made by the informant about alleged sexual assault was not believable at all?

XII) Is not the High Court in error of law in declining regular bail to the Petitioner when trial has not even started and it would take a long time for the trial to complete?

XIII) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to appreciate that the entire investigation is vitiated as the statement of informant and Ananya was recorded jointly?

XIV) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that informant and her family have police protection?

XV) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to notice that further proceedings have stayed by this Hon'ble Court as allegedly cognizance was manifestly illegal, therefore, Petitioner ought to have been enlarged on bail, but keeping behind bar to the Petitioner by refusing from release on bail was not proper?

XVI) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to appreciate that there is no supporting evidence on record in the nature of conclusive evidence except the statement of Savita Pathak, therefore, the Petitioner ought to have been enlarged on bail?

XVII) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to appreciate that identity of accused is doubtful in according to 164 Cr.P.C. statements of minor girl Ananya?

XVIII) Is not the High Court in error of law in failing to appreciate that at the time and place of occurrence neither the prosecutrix nor accused persons were found present?