The court quashed the prior rejection order and granted bail to the applicant, Deepak Batham, who was falsely implicated in a cheating and theft case, citing meritorious submissions and pandemic-related jail overcrowding.
The applicant is enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7492 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak Batham Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State.
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.951 of 2020 at Police Station-Kotwali Farrukhabad, District-Farrukhabad on 14.10.2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 04.01.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 15.10.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. False recovery was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in this case and to show proficiency of police investigators. Only incriminating material is the
confessional statement made by the applicant before the police authorities. The confessional statement given by the applicant before the police authorities was extracted by coercion and made under duress. No reliance can be placed on the aforesaid statement. Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is an easy scapegoat for the police authorities, inasmuch as, they have repeatedly implicated him in a false case in order to enhance their professional credentials. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Deepak Batham involved in Case Crime No.951 of 2020 at Police Station-Kotwali Farrukhabad, District-Farrukhabad under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail
cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 25.11.2021 Ashish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering allegations of false implication and jail overcrowding.
If the bail application is allowed, what conditions must the applicant abide by.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisonsReferred¶12
Deepak Batham
State of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
