NEERAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H. C. Mital, J. In this bail application it has been urged that the appli cant though has been named in the F. I. R. , but still he is not known to the witnesses and, therefore, he claimed identification, but his application for identification was rejected and, therefore, he should be granted bail, as that is a circumstance creating doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case.

(2.) THE facts in brief according to the prosecution are that on 18-7-1989 at 9-30 p. m. at a restaurant of the complainant's brother in Kuncha Sita Ram, P. S. Kotwali, Bareilly the applicant along with two other co-accused arrived and at their instigation he threw away the par aat from the shop whereupon Gyaneshwar objected, then the applicant Neeraj inflicted knife blows on Gyaneshwar. Immediately thereafter Rameshwar Dayal from the shop apposite to the restaurant arrived to interference, then the applicant Neeraj also inflict ed several knife blow on him. However, Rameshwar Dayal survived and Gyaneshwar died. THE applicant claimed identification on the plea that the witnesses did not know him.

(3.) IN the case of Jadunath Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1971 SC 363 after making reference to the various decisions of the various High Courts in which different views were taken, their Lordships relied on their earlier decision in the case of Prakash Chand Sogani v. State of Rajasihan, an unreported deci sion in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1956, dated 15-1-1957 (SC), and laid down as follows : "it seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this Court that 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 fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter, the prosecution should hold an identifica tion parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witness did not know him previously. It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist on an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it trans pires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, as pointed out above the prosecution will, unless there is some other evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point. " (Underlined my own)