Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1911 (ALL)

Parsu v. State of U. P.

2014-07-02

AMAR SARAN, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2014
JUDGMENT Amar Saran and Karuna Nand Bajpayee,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been in jail for about 21 years since 7.10.1993. He was represented by Amicus Curiae in the trial court and he was convicted by the judgement dated 18.12.1999. He was only able to file his appeal on 28.3.2014 and the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned by order dated 10.4.2014. The appeal was admitted and the record has been received. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that this case is virtually a case of no evidence. No one was named in the FIR. The appellant is said to have been roaming near the place where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. There is some recovery of Tora and Safi but no connecting evidence has been produced for showing that the same belonged to the deceased or that the Safi was used for strangulating the deceased. Although the fact of the deceased being carried by the appellant was mentioned by PW-3 Sukh Lal, it was not mentioned in the FIR when the FIR was lodged after two days of her disappearance after the corpse was recovered. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions. 5. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 6. Let the appellant Parsu convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 29 of 1993 State Vs. Parsu, under sections 302/ 394/ 201/ 411 I.P.C, P.S. Jakhlaun district Lalitpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties of Rs. 2000 ( two thousand only) each to the satisfaction of court concerned. 7. The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal. 8. The trial court is to ensure that the appellant is not unduly detained on account of his inability to furnish sureties and to further ensure that the decisions of the Apex Court in Moti Ram and others Vs. State of M.P. (1978) 4 SCC 47 , Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 and this Court in Govardhan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. (1978) 4 SCC 47 , Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 and this Court in Govardhan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (83) All. C.C 756 are observed on the need to prevent poor litigants from languishing in jail for want of persons willing to stand surety for them.