LUFTE ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.