Ajay Lamba vs State Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: August 18, 2026
% Pronounced on: August 31, 2026

# CNR No.DLHC011027202025

+ BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025

AJAY LAMBA .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Ankit Mutreja, Mr. Aditya
Aggarwal and Mr. Naveen Panwar,
Advs.
Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State
with Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr.
Gourav Singh, Advs.
SI K. P. Singh, PS New Ashok
Nagar
Mr. Anuj Kapoor and Mr. Nandeesh
Nanda, Advs. for victim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the
1
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.77/2001 dated
17.03.2001 registered at PS.: New Ashok Nagar, Delhi for the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 302/307/392/397/34/174-A of the
2
Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

1
Hereinafter referred to as “ BNSS ”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”
BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 Page 1 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

2. Succinctly put , as per prosecution, upon receipt of information on
17.03.2001, the Police reached the spot and found two unconscious persons
lying. From there they were taken to the nearest Hospital. On reaching the
Hospital, one of the victim, was declared brought dead. This led to
3
registration of the present FIR. Later, Mr. Munna Lal , one of the victims,
disclosed that the co-accused Mr. Dhirendra had got in touch with him for
hiring a vehicle. He then gave him and the deceased some food, after eating
which they fell unconscious. Thence, during investigation, the said co-
accused person disclosed that the applicant alongwith another co-accused
person had plotted a conspiracy to rob the vehicle. Both victims then fell
unconscious after eating the drugged food, after which the applicant herein
strangulated the victims by a rope. Thereafter, the co-accused persons left
the spot.
3. During further investigation, since the applicant herein alongwith the
co-accused Mr. Dalip could not be found, they were declared Proclaimed
Offenders vide order dated 17.07.2001 by the learned Trial Court. On
06.07.2025, an information was received that the applicant herein had been
arrested in another FIR. Pursuant thereto, TIP proceedings were conducted
whereby Mr. Munna Lal correctly identified the applicant and thus the
supplementary charge-sheet qua the applicant was filed before the learned
Trial Court.
4. In the proceedings before this Court, learned counsel for the
applicant primarily argued that the applicant has been implicated herein
only on account of similarity of his name to the person who was declared a
Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 17.07.2001 was “ Ajay Kumar ”.

3
Hereinafter referred to as “ victim ”
BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 Page 2 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

5. However, in response thereto, the learned APP has filed germane
dossiers as also statements under Section 183 of the BNSS of the other co-
accused persons to affirm that “ Ajay Kumar ” is indeed “ Ajay Lamba ” who
also known by the name “ Basi Lal ”.
6. In this factual backdrop this Court has heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for the victim/ deceased, as
also perused the materials on record.

7. Regarding the TIP proceedings, a perusal of the said TIP proceedings
conducted on 09.09.2025, reveals that Mr. Munna Lal had correctly
identified the applicant herein to be the same person who was involved in
the commission of the offences.
8. In fact, the said TIP proceedings are followed by the statements
under Section 183 of the BNSS dated 23.05.2026 and 25.05.2026 wherein
both co-accused persons, Mr. Dalip Singh and Mr. Dhirendra Singh, have
“ … …confirmed that Ajay Kumar, Ajay Lamba & Bansi Lal is one of the
same person and that he knows him and his family very well .”. Not only
that the same is also supported by the dossiers of both Mr. Bansi Lal and
Mr. Ajay Lamba, wherein the first names pertaining to the children, i.e.,
son and daughter as also his wife are the same.
9. Although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gireesan Nair and Ors. vs.
4
State of Kerala , held that the TIP proceedings should be held without an
unreasonable delay in order to eliminate the possibility of the accused
being shown to the witness before the TIP proceedings, however, in the
present proceedings since the applicant herein was admittedly absconding

4
MANU/SC/1486/2022
BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 Page 3 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

for almost twenty-five years, and it is only thereafter Mr. Munna Lal has
identified the applicant herein, which are followed by the statements under
Section 183 of the BNSS dated 23.05.2026 and 25.05.2026 wherein both
co-accused persons, confirmed that Ajay Kumar, Ajay Lamba & Bansi Lal
is one and the same person, as such, the aforesaid dicta, with respect, is of
no assistance to the applicant herein.
10. Therefore, the alleged delay cannot come to the aid of the applicant,
and since any discrepancy qua identity of the applicant is indeed a matter
of trial, the same cannot be gone into/ adjudicated by this Court at this
stage while considering an application for grant of regular bail, more so,
since it would tantamount to appreciation of evidence.
11. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court
“ Mr. Ajay Lamba ” and “ Mr. Ajay Kumar ” are one/ same person who had
been declared as a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 17.07.2001. It is,
thus, way too premature for ascertaining the true identity of the applicant
herein.
12. Lastly, though learned counsel for the applicant has also raised an
issue of there being an alleged discrepancy regarding the timing of the
arrest of the applicant, however since the same also requires a detailed
scrutiny of the material(s) on record, the same is a matter of evidence. In
any event, the same cannot by itself be a ground warranting grant of regular
bail to anyone like the applicant herein.
13. For the afore-going reasons, the applicant, who had been declared as
a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 17.07.2001, is not entitled for grant
of regular bail.
14. Consequently, the present application is dismissed.
BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 Page 4 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

15. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits involved, if any,
are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present bail application
and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/rr/AKS

BAIL APPLN. 4898/2025 Page 5 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50