(1.) This is an application for bail by Prakash Dhobi and Kailash Dhobi sons of Pyare said to be involved under sections 147, 148, 307,302/149 and 506, I.P.C. registered at crime No. 117 of 93 P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi.
(2.) The bail in this case is desired primarily on the ground that the applicants had claimed identification and the same has not been arranged and rather denied by the prosecution. - In this behalf observations are there in the order of the Sessions Judge refusing bail to the effect that the applicants had applied for getting them identified by the prosecution witnesses but the same was refused by the police station concerned with a report that it was not needed since the accused persons were named in the First Information Report. It also appears that during the pendency of the bail application before the Sessions Judge, again accused persons had applied for getting identification proceedings conducted and again the prosecution had avoided it. It is the effect of this refusal, which has to be considered in this bail application with some general principles of law.
(3.) It appears from a perusal of order dated 54-93 of the Sessions Judge that decision of this Court reported in U.P. Criminal Cases 1992 page 196 in re: Babu Singh v. State were brought to his knowledge, amongst other decision but it is strange that the public prosecutor in the face of this judicial decision, again opposed the identification and still more strange is that the Sessions Judge accepted the contention. It is in these circumstances that I consider it necessary to elaborate further the law observed in the above mentioned decision, so that it may be followed by the courts below in proper perspective. I am afraid I feel constrained to say that the learned Sessions Judge has possibly avoided to understand the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence procedure and rights of the accused with the presumption of innocence and the principles for which identification proceedings are taken.