(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which gave certain directions to the State Government in the matter of identification of prisoners and methodology for investigation. The respondent No. 1 had filed an application for grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). During hearing of the petition the respondent No. 1 who was the applicant before the High Court stated that the petition has become infructuous. Therefore, he did not want to press the same. The High Court held that even though the petition had become infructuous certain directions were necessary to be given to the concerned authorities.
(2.) The stand before the High Court by the appellant State was that there were not many cases where impersonation was involved and therefore the desirability of taking the photographs in all cases would be an additional burden on the State Exchequer. It was pointed out that Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (in short the 'Prisoners Act') provided sufficient guidelines. Direction was given to the State about affixing the photographs of the accused persons as well as the witness. There is a likelihood of a grievance being made that the photographs were shown to the accused before the Test Identification Parade. The High Court was however of the view that at the time of filing charge sheet, the photographs of the witnesses as well as the accused persons should be given to avoid impersonation and to curb delay due to non-service of summons and warrants in criminal trials.
(3.) The High Court noted that though Section 170(2) of the Code provides for taking surety bonds from the accused persons for their appearance in Court at the time when the charge sheet is filed or when the accused is forwarded to Magistrate, this is not sufficient safeguard in cases of impersonation. Accordingly the following directions were given :