- (1.) K. K. Cbaubey, J. Both these bail applications arises out of Crime No. 751 of 1988, under Section 302,i. P. C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahr. As common questions have been raised in these bail applicatious, they can be conveniently disposed of by one order,
(2.) A written report was lodged on 25-11-1988 at 13. 15 hour by Zamir Ahmad against the three accused persons of these applications and one another person in which it was pleaded that all the four accused persons committed murder of Noor Mohammad at 12. 15 hours, on the same day in court campus, which was witnessed by several persons. The bail applications of the applicants were rejected by the Sessions Judge. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that the applicant request for identification from the witnesses was not conceded and this alone is sufficient ground for their release, on bail. The second contention was that applicants live a distance of 45 kms. and the prosecution witnesses had no opportunity to know them from before.
(3.) IN support of the first contention some rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicants to show that if the accused claimed identifica tion and the prosecution did not oblige them an element of doubt should be attached to the testimony of the witnesses and the accused would be entitled to bail. IN State of U. P. v. Rajju and others, AIR 1971 SC 708 (1), it was held that it was not necessary for the State to held identification parade when, accord ing to the prosecution the accused were arrested on the spot. This observation of the Supreme Court did not go to mean that whenever the accused claimed for identification parade, it would have been arranged. In Jadunath Singh and other v. State of U. P. , 1971 ACC page 80, it was argued before the Supreme Court that since the accused were denied identi fication the trial was vitiated on this point. The Supreme Court relying on an earlier ruling of Prakash Chand Sogani v. State of Rajasthan, 1958 SCR 1218 at page 1222, observed : "the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course if the prosecution feels to hold in an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution, would run the risk of losing its case. ";