JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur convicting the appellant under Sec. 379 I. P. C. and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that Ram Briksh Singh (P. W. 2) while coming from village Sisaura on a cycle on the night between 27th and 28th March 1962 noticed two cars standing on the pucca road to the west of village Kusumhi. The time was between 12 and 12-30 A.M. and there was moon light. Ram Briksh Singh got suspicious at seeing the two cars at that hour and he informed constable Jagarnath Singh (P.W. 7) and told him about his suspicions. The constable asked Ram Briksh Singh to speak to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Inspector who were making a spot inspection in connection with a telegraph wire cutting case. Ram Briksh Singh along with Jagarnath Singh went upto the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sri D. K. Tewari (P.W. 1) and told him about the incident. Sri Darbari Singh (P.W. 8) was also with Sri D. K. Tewari. The police officials then started on a police vehicle accompanied by Ram Briksh Singh and picked up Badri Gir (P.W. 5), Kashi Nath Singh and Sudarshan Tewari in the way and came to the place where the two cars were standing. The two cars bore No. U.P. L. 3587 and U.P. L. 1840. The cars were parked on the left side of the road and the police vehicle stopped on The right side of the road. The police officials found some copper wire being placed in the boot of car bearing the number U.P. L. 1840 which was in the front. A man was holding the lid of the boot. Two other men were trying to put copper wire in it and the appellant was supervising and giving instructions. As soon as the police vehicle stopped the appellant and the man who was holding the boot took seats in car U.P. L. 1840 and ran away with the car. The police vehicle was sent to chase the car but could not succeed in catching the car. Two other men ran away on foot in the north west direction and could not be caught. The police vehicle was sent to chase the car but could not succeed in catching the car. Two other men ran away on foot in the north west direction and could not be caught. The police officials and the other men accompanying them saw the faces of all the persons in the light of the police vehicle and in the light of torches which they had. The other car U.P. L. 3587 had also started but before it could leave the police officials arrested its driver Ram Dularey Misra. Some copper wire and two pairs of rubber shoes were recovered from this car. Recovery memos were prepared. Sri D. K. Tewari lodged the first information report Ex. Ka. 4 the same night at 3 A.M. at police station Nandganj. Ram Dularey Misra, the driver of car No. U.P. L. 3587 was kept in police custody at the thana. 3. Investigation was taken up by Sri Darbari Singh (P. W. 8), who prepared a site plan and later handed over the Investigation to Sri Bhawani Prasad (P. W. 15). The appellant was arrested on 12th April 1962 by Sri Banarsi Singh (P.W. 10). He was arrested from his house in Mohalla Nadesar in Varanasi. He was sent to the thana baparda. The car No. U.P. L. 1840, belonging to the appellant was also taken in custody. The appellant was sent from the thana to the district Jail, Varanasi with constable Mohd. Shaban (P. W. 13). Before identification proceedings could take place the appellant was removed to district jail, Jaunpur on 20th May 1962. For some reason or the other identification proceedings kept on being postponed and on 8th September 1962 the appellant was released on bail Identification proceedings took place on 11th November 1962, and were conducted by Sri R. L. Agarwal, a learned Magistrate, (P. W. 19). The telegraph authorities examined the seized wire and identified the same as belonging to the postal department. It may be stated that on 11th October 1962, i.e. one month before the identification proceedings, the appellant had moved an application that witnesses were trying to see him. 4. The appellant's conviction is based entirely on his identification. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that car No. U.P. L. 1840 belonged to him but he denied that he was present at the place of occurrence on the night in question. 4. The appellant's conviction is based entirely on his identification. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that car No. U.P. L. 1840 belonged to him but he denied that he was present at the place of occurrence on the night in question. He also stated that the witnesses had seen him at the police station and also after he was released on bail. No witness was examined in defence. 6. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses. The appellant was correctly identified by Ram Briksh Singh (P. W. 2), Badri Gir (P. W. 5), Parshottam Ram (P. W. 6) and Jagarnath Singh (P. W. 7). Ram Briksh Singh (P.V. 2) corroborated the prosecution case and stated that he saw the accused in the light of the police vehicle and also in the light of a torch which was lit by constable Jagarnath Singh. The witness also noted the number of a car as 1840 and the number of the second car was also noted as 3587. 7. Badri Gir (P. W. 5) also corroborated the prosecution case and stated that he had also seen the accused in the light of the police vehicle. The evidence of Parshottam Ram (P. W. 6) is also to the same effect. He stated that he clearly saw the face of the accused in the light of the police vehicle. 8. Jagarnath Singh (P. W. 7) made a similar statement, and stated that he had clearly seen the faces of all the persons present at the spot in the light of the police vehicle. 9. Darbari Singh (P.W.8) also stated that he saw the face of the accused in the light of the police vehicle and in the light of Jagarnath Singh's torch. He stated that in that light a man could be seen even at a far distance as the head light of the police vehicle was very bright. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the identification in the instant case took place almost even months after the accused was arrested and hence such an identification was worthless. He urged that the witnesses could not identify the accused in the light of police vehicle and had no opportunity to do so because as soon as the police vehicle stopped the accused ran away in he car. 11. There is no force in these submissions. 12. He urged that the witnesses could not identify the accused in the light of police vehicle and had no opportunity to do so because as soon as the police vehicle stopped the accused ran away in he car. 11. There is no force in these submissions. 12. The eye-witnesses are independent witnesses and there is no reason to discard their testimony. They lave clearly stated that the police vehicle had bright head lights which were in perfect order and things were visible in that light upto a long distance. The police vehicle was stopped on the other side of the road. There was thus an excellent opportunity for the witnesses in the police vehicle to identify the persons landing near the two cars. The appellant admitted that the car bearing No. U.P. L. 1840 belonged to him. If the appellant was not present at the spot on the night of the occurrence the presence of his car at that place at that time cannot be explained. The learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the fact that the appellant had made an application on 11th October 1962 that witnesses were trying to see him. The mere fact that the appellant had made such an application does not prove that the witnesses actually saw him. If the witnesses had seen him the appellant must have mentioned that fact in the application. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Ganga Singh v. State, 1955 AWR (H.C.) 673 in which it was held by a learned Judge of this court that where the evidence against an accused person is said to be the evidence of identification alone, the person in question should not be enlarged on bail before the identification proceedings are held. If bail is granted the risk of the accused person being seen by the witnesses before the identification proceedings are held cannot be eliminated. And if that risk is there, the identification proceedings are reduced to an absolute farce. This ruling, however, lays down incorrect law as a Division Bench of this Court in State v. Kulwant Singh, 1959 AWR (H.C.) 410 held that the view is erroneous that, if the accused person is enlarged on bail, the identification proceedings are reduced to an absolute farce. The value to be attached to an identification parade depends upon circumstances of each case. 14. The value to be attached to an identification parade depends upon circumstances of each case. 14. The main considerations before a court are whether the identification parade was conducted in a fair manner, and whether witnesses in fact saw the accused between the commission of the offence and the identification parade. The mere fact that the appellant was released on bail cannot lead to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses must have seen him between the period of his release and the day of the identification proceedings. In the instant case identification parade was conducted in a fair manner. The prosecution witnesses categorically stated that they did not see the accused between the date of occurrence and the identification parade. The prosecution witnesses also categorically stated that the accused was taken to the thana baparda. The presence of the appellants car at the time of occurrence clearly proves that the appellant was one of the thieves. 15. The appeal, therefore, has no force and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the rest of the sentence awarded to him.