maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. 5. 6. M.U. VARGHESE v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI a. 2015, Kerala High Court b. Court observed that proceedings in which statements under section 164(1) Cr.P.C of an accused is made, the same shall be recorded in a camera and a copy of it shall be retained by the investigation officer for the purpose of investigation. The investigating officer shall not directly or indirectly disclose its contents or issue its copy if it is against public interest RAJU MANJHI V. STATE OF BIHAR a. AIR 2018 SC (CRIMINAL) 983 b. Test Identification parade is no way substantial evidence but it just to be considered for the investigation agency for them to drive in the right way to apprehend the victims is just to help the investigation agency and no way about subnarial evidence. c. Test Identification parade does not constitute substantive evidence and governed by S. 162 of Code - Failure to hold TIP would not make evidence of identification in Court inadmissible. 15