In Ajay Lamba v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 (decided 31 August 2026), Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the High Court of Delhi dismissed a regular bail application arising out of FIR No. 77/2001 for offences including murder, attempted murder and robbery. The applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender in 2001 under a different name and was arrested only in 2025. His central argument — that he was not the person named in the old proceedings — did not persuade the Court, which found on the material that the names referred to the same person and that any residual identity dispute belonged to the trial, not to a bail hearing.
The case
FIR No. 77/2001 was registered on 17 March 2001 for offences under Sections 302, 307, 392, 397 and 34 IPC, with Section 174-A added later. The prosecution case was that two victims were given drugged food by a co-accused; one died and one survived, and the applicant was alleged to have participated in strangulation with a rope. Proceedings against the applicant — then identified as "Ajay Kumar" — could not go forward because he absconded, and he was declared a proclaimed offender in 2001. He was arrested in 2025, and test identification proceedings followed.
The identity argument and why it failed
The applicant contended that he was Ajay Lamba, not the "Ajay Kumar" proclaimed in 2001, and that the prosecution had the wrong man. Justice Saurabh Banerjee examined the material — the victim identification, co-accused statements and the investigative record — and found that "Ajay Lamba", "Ajay Kumar" and "Bansi Lal" referred to the same person. To the extent any dispute about identity survived, the Court held it was a matter for trial and could not be adjudicated at the bail stage.
A bail court takes the prosecution material at its prima facie value. It neither convicts nor acquits — and it will not resolve contested factual defences, identity included, that require evidence to be tested.
How courts weigh a bail plea from a former absconder
The broader practice point
Delhi courts have in recent months repeatedly confronted arrests made long after proclamation — often when a person surfaces under a different name or in a different State. The pattern in the decisions is consistent: the passage of time does not launder the absconding, and identity defences are preserved for trial rather than tried on affidavits. For persons who discover that an old proclamation stands against them, the sound course is legal: surrender, apply for bail with a full explanation, and challenge any defective proclamation directly. Remaining underground compounds the original case with a Section 174-A IPC / Section 209 BNS prosecution and effectively forecloses bail when the arrest eventually comes.
Where this leaves the applicant
The dismissal is of the bail application alone; the trial will decide guilt, and the identity dispute remains open there. But the decision confirms the working rule for regular bail in Delhi: an applicant who spent decades outside the reach of process starts the bail hearing from a position from which few applications recover.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a proclaimed offender?
A person against whom a proclamation is published under Section 82 CrPC — now Section 84 BNSS — after a warrant remains unexecuted because the person is absconding. Being declared a proclaimed offender is itself an offence (Section 174-A IPC, now Section 209 BNS) and weighs heavily against the grant of bail.
Why does proclaimed offender status hurt a bail application?
Bail rests substantially on the court's confidence that the accused will attend trial. A record of absconding — especially one spanning years — is direct evidence of flight risk, the first limb of the triple test. Courts routinely refuse bail, and even anticipatory bail, to persons who evaded process.
Can an accused argue mistaken identity at the bail stage?
The argument can be raised, but courts will not conduct a mini-trial to resolve it. Where prosecution material — such as test identification proceedings and statements — prima facie connects the applicant to the case, the identity dispute is left for trial and bail is decided on the material as it stands.
Does long passage of time since the offence favour bail?
Not where the delay is attributable to the accused's own absconding. Delay caused by the system can support bail on speedy-trial grounds, but a fugitive cannot convert the years of evasion into a ground for release.