[-1-]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.713 OF 2007

Raju @ Ashraf Askar Shaikh ..Applicant

Vs.

State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

...

Mr.S.S.Khan counsel for applicant

Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State

...

CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.

CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.

CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.

DATE : MARCH 22, 2007

DATE : MARCH 22, 2007

DATE : MARCH 22, 2007

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and

the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.I-

136 of 2006 of Manikpur Police Station. The said

case is under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC.

3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant

along with other co-accused entered into the house

of the complainant at about 2.45 a.m. armed with

iron rods and other weapons. They broke open the

latch of the house of the complainant and entered

into the house and committed theft of articles.

[-2-]

The applicant has been identified by the daughter

of the complainant in the test identification

parade.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has

submitted that the investigation in the present

case is over and charge sheet has been filed. He

has submitted that case is entirely dependent on

the identification of the applicant in the test

identification parade. He has further submitted

that there is delay in holding the test

identification parade and mandatory requirements in

respect of holding the test identification parade

were not complied with. In support of his

contention that the mandatory requirements are not

followed, hence the test identification parade

cannot be relied upon, he has placed reliance on

the decision of this Court in the case of Rakesh

Rakesh

Rakesh

Harilal Kahar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

Harilal Kahar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

Harilal Kahar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2006(2) B.C.R. (Cri.) 533

2006(2) B.C.R. (Cri.) 533

2006(2) B.C.R. (Cri.) 533.

5. I have perused the said decision. In the said

case, the witnesses have stated in their evidence

that the Special Executive Officer who conducted

parade, did not ask the witness whether he had an

[-3-]

opportunity to see the accused or his photograph

before the parade. Besides this, some other

requirements were not followed by the Special

Executive Officer, hence, evidence relating to

identification was discarded. It is pertinent to

note that in the said case, trial was conducted,

the evidence