Delhi HC grants bail to man, says proclaimed offender label not an absolute barrier

New Delhi [India], December 4 : The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Shamshad, a 50-year-old shopkeeper from Shaheen Bagh, in a case that began as a neighbourhood disagreement but later grew into serious allegations.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while delivering the order, clarified that being declared a proclaimed offender does not automatically bar the Court from considering an anticipatory bail request, and that each matter must be examined on its individual facts.
The petition was argued by advocates Syed Kamran Ali and Yusuf Khan, while APP Shoaib Haider represented the State.
The dispute dates back to March 2025. According to the complainant, a quarrel in the local market escalated into a physical confrontation, during which several individuals, including Shamshad, allegedly assaulted members of the complainant's family and took away a mobile phone and cash.
Following this, non-bailable warrants were issued, and proclamation proceedings were initiated against some of the accused.
Shamshad, however, provided a different narrative before the Court. He stated that the incident originated when a woman at his shop allegedly attempted to take a bedsheet and pillowcase without paying. When he confronted her, she reportedly called others to the spot, resulting in a tense and disorderly situation. He maintained that he was wrongly implicated and had no involvement in any assault alleged in the FIR.
While evaluating the material, the Court made several important observations. Justice Krishna noted that although a proclamation is a serious procedural step, it does not in itself prevent the Court from entertaining an anticipatory bail plea.
The Court reiterated that the larger context, such as the gravity of allegations, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the circumstances that led to the proclamation, must guide the decision. It also observed that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution did not establish Shamshad's presence at the scene.
The video footage did not feature him, his location data aligned with his explanation that he lived nearby, and the allegation that he mobilised a group of people was based on an assumption rather than specific proof.
The Court further took note that several co-accused had already been granted bail or interim relief, and that the investigation had progressed significantly. On this basis, it found that the custodial interrogation of Shamshad was not necessary.
Granting the relief, the High Court directed that Shamshad be released in the event of arrest upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety.
He has been instructed to join the investigation whenever required, keep his phone functional, avoid contacting or influencing witnesses, and refrain from any conduct that may affect the ongoing proceedings.