When folks are released on bail, it is with the belief that they will return for future proceedings, either because they stand to lose a substantial amount of money or because there is reason to believe that they are upstanding enough to be counted upon--or both. If this man does not identify himself, he has zero chance of coming up with bail money (unless he had it in his pockets at the time of arrest) and does not instill any faith in his willingness to show up for trial.
It is reasonable that he stay in jail until trial.
I only wonder whether he was arrested because of a failure to "cooperate" with police. That would be troubling.
On ninja edit (with the expressed intent of making some posts down there look pretty foolish): Please note that nowhere am I saying that the law causes one to be held for refusing to identify himself. Instead, I am pointing out that releasing someone on bail who remains unidentified is a practical impossibility, not a legal one. RIF, folks. No citation of law is necessary, or even possible, as I am not making a comment on the effect of law. Duh.
