$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2022/2026 RAMPREET KAMAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Katiyar, Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Mr. Ranveer Kamat and Ms. Akansha Chandela, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State. Insp. Ramvir Singh, PS Ranjit Nagar. Mr. Sarthak Karol, DHCLSC, Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advs. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proclamation proceedings, as the notices were sent to his address in Bihar, whereas the petitioner was residing in Ghaziabad, from where he was ultimately arrested. 3. The allegations against the present petitioner are under Sections 302, 397, 411, 174-A, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's fingerprints were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and that, as per the FSL report, the fingerprints do not match. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 16:08:08 5. Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner was arrested after remaining a proclaimed offender for about 15 years. He further submits that although the co-accused have been acquitted, the petitioner has been in judicial custody only for the last eight months. 6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State. 7. This court is of the view that the petitioner was never arrested during the investigation and, after being declared a proclaimed offender, was apprehended only last year. 8. It is an admitted position that the trial against the co-accused has concluded and they have already been acquitted. However, considering the gravity of the offences alleged and the fact that all the material witnesses are yet to be examined, there exists every likelihood that the petitioner may abscond, tamper with the evidence, or influence the witnesses if released on bail. Accordingly, no ground for grant of bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J. JULY 8, 2026/b/rm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 16:08:08