Regular bail may be denied when an applicant’s identity as a proclaimed offender requires trial determination.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 77/2001, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar for offences under Sections 302, 307, 392, 397, 34 and 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 17 March 2001, two persons were found unconscious after consuming drugged food; one subsequently died.

A surviving victim, Munna Lal, stated that co-accused Dhirendra had arranged the vehicle and that the applicant and another accused participated in a conspiracy to rob the vehicle and strangulate the victims.

The applicant and co-accused Dalip could not be traced and were declared proclaimed offenders on 17 July 2001.

After the applicant was arrested in another case on 6 July 2025, a Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) was conducted on 9 September 2025, in which Munna Lal identified him.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated because the person declared a proclaimed offender was named “Ajay Kumar,” whereas the applicant was “Ajay Lamba.”

The prosecution relied on police dossiers and statements of co-accused under Section 183 BNSS to assert that Ajay Kumar, Ajay Lamba and Bansi Lal were the same person.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS despite the prosecution’s claim that he was the same person as “Ajay Kumar,” who had been declared a proclaimed offender in 2001?

Whether the delayed TIP identification, conducted approximately twenty-five years after the alleged offence, rendered the prosecution case sufficiently doubtful for grant of bail?

Whether the alleged discrepancy regarding the timing of the applicant’s arrest constituted a ground for grant of regular bail?

The Court considered the applicant’s plea for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, in the context of the serious allegations under Sections 302, 307, 392, 397, 34 and 174-A IPC.

It applied the principle that disputed questions concerning identity and appreciation of evidence ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the bail stage, particularly where doing so would amount to a detailed assessment of the prosecution evidence.

The Court also considered Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/1486/2022, which holds that a TIP should ordinarily be conducted without unreasonable delay to reduce the possibility of the accused being shown to the witness beforehand.

The Court further treated the applicant’s status as a proclaimed offender and the material linking the aliases “Ajay Kumar,” “Ajay Lamba” and “Bansi Lal” as relevant considerations against bail.

The Court found that the delayed TIP could not, at the bail stage, override the fact that the applicant had remained absconding for nearly twenty-five years and had thereafter been identified by the surviving victim.

The TIP was supported by statements of two co-accused recorded under Section 183 BNSS, who stated that Ajay Kumar, Ajay Lamba and Bansi Lal were the same person, as well as by similarities in the family details appearing in the relevant police dossiers.

Accordingly, the Court held that the identity dispute was a matter for trial and that determining it conclusively at the bail stage would amount to an impermissible appreciation of evidence.

The alleged discrepancy in the timing of arrest likewise required detailed evidentiary scrutiny and, standing alone, did not justify release on bail.

In view of the seriousness of the offences, the applicant’s alleged identity as the proclaimed offender, and the supporting identification material, the Court declined regular bail.

The delayed TIP and alleged arrest-timing discrepancy did not warrant bail.

The applicant, having been declared a proclaimed offender on 17 July 2001, was held not entitled to regular bail; the bail application was accordingly dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.