There is no absolute right to demand an identification parade, and the decision of whether or not to allow one is within the discretion of the court.

This is the first bail application by the applicant Radhey Shyam who is involved in Crime Case No. 506/1993 under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of police station Sarai Inayat, district Allahabad.

2. I have heard Sri Dilip Kumar learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. C. Tewari Senior Advocate on behalf of the complainant and the learned A. G. A.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged the first ground that since the applicant challenged his identity and involvement in the crime and prayed for identification parade but he was refused, he should be enlarged on bail. In sport of his contention, he has cited decisions of this Court in bail application of Budhsen v. State, (1992) 29 ACC 676; 1992 JIC 681 (All) and also a decision in the bail application of Yogendra v. State of U. P. , 1993, UP Crr 383: 1993 JIC 522 (All ). These cases have also made references to the earlier decisions of this Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of U. P. , 1986 (23) ACC 110. Shakeel v. State of U. P. , 1988 (3) Crimes 796, Suresh Chandra v. State, 1989 ACC 250 and Ramesh and others v. State of U. P. , 1985 (22) ACC 42.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tewari invited attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh and others v. State of U, P. , 1985 (22) ACC 41 (summary of cases) Lufte Ali v. State of U. P. , 1990 A Crr 13, in the case of Lufte; Alt (supra) reference of SCC AIR 1971 SC 708, State of U. P. v. Rajju, 1971 ACC 80, Jagunath v. State of U. P. , was also made in Addition, on the question whether the accused had a right to demand identification.

5. In all the cases referred to above by the learned counsel for both the sides, the legal position enunciated is quite consistent and clear "there is no provision either under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 9 of the Evidence Act to entitled the accused to demand that he should be put up for identification either at the trial or before inquiry. The identifica tion proceeding provides only corroborative evidence for the substantial evi dence of the witnesses who are examined at the trial. If the accused applies for being put up for identification or challenges his identity or his

participa tion in the alleged crime, the prosecution should normally do so and put up the accused for identification at the earliest stage during investigation and if it refuses it takes the risk of making the prosecution case doubtful so far as the accused is concerned. If the Court ultimately holds that the witnesses who are deposing against the accused did not know him from before, their testimony will lose credence and shall be discarded on the ground of suspicion in the absence of proper corroboration through identification proceedings. However, this plea of the accused will be properly considered only at the stage of trial and after conclusion of the entire evidence. It is no where provided or appears to be absolutely necessary that on the basis of this plea of demand of identification and refused thereof by the prosecution during investigation, the accused must be released on bail. If the prosecution goes a head with the evidence of the eye-witnesses who can connect the accused with the commission of the crime, it is for the prosecution either to gain or suffer at the conclusion of the trial. If the accused is not found involved or connected with the commission of the alleged offence, he shall be certainly entitled to acquittal of the charges at the proper stage.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further contended on merits that the applicant Radhey Shyam was not fully described in the F. I. R. inasmuch as his parentage was not disclosed either in the F. I. R. or in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. by the Investigat ing Officer concerned. But the learned Sessions Judge unfortunately committed the mistake in writing in the impugned o