Upon reviewing the decisions mentioned above, it became apparent that identification through Test Identification Parades (TIP) served merely as corroborative evidence to support the identification of the accused by witnesses during the trial. The promptness of conducting a TIP is subject to various factors.

When victims originate from the same area and the parade is to be held in the same location, there is little room for delay. However, when victims are dispersed across different locations and parades are to be conducted accordingly, some delays are inevitable. For example, in the current case, arrests were made in the last week of December 1995 and the first week of January 1996.

As the dacoities were committed, the TIP had to be undertaken with due diligence; the basic information required correction. Ensuring the availability of witnesses was crucial. The parades had to be scheduled when the local magistrate could allocate time to oversee them. Individuals resembling the accused had to be found and included in the lineup. All these processes were inevitably time-consuming.