LexSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus DINESH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 281 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. A -, v. DINESH KUMAR (C.A. No. 84 of 2008) JANUARY 8, 2008 8 (C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 46 and· 439 - Expressions 'arrest' and 'custody' - c Connotation of - Persons appearing before Magistrate released on bail/personal bond without being taken into formal custody - HELD: A person can be stated to be in judicial custody when he 'Surrenders before the Coult and submits to its directions - When a person who is not in custody, approaches a police officer and provides information, which D leads to discovery of a fact, which could be used against him, it would be deemed that he has surrendered to the authority of investigating agency Service Law: E Appointment - Recruitment to police constable-drivers - Application form - Query in, as to arrest of applicant - Answered in negative - Later it was found that applicant was released on bail/personal bond in respect of a criminal case - Appointment denied for suppression of material fact - Held: F Though the applicant-accused appeared before the Magistrate and on his application he was granted bail without being taken into formal custody, it cannot be said that no arrest had actually been effected - However, on facts of the case, the benefit of a mistaken impression would be given to applicant rather than G treating it a case of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and concealment of facts - Authorities directed to give l appointment letters to candidates concerned - Constitution of India - Arlicle 136. 281 H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A The respondent in C.A. No. 84 of 2008 and the appellant in C.A. No. 85 of 2008 applied for appointment as Constable-Drivers in the Haryana Police. In answer to the queries as to whether the applicant was ever arrested and as to whether he was ever convicted by the Court of B any offence, as asked in columns 13(A) and 14, respectively, of the application form, the applicants answered in the negative. Subsequently, during verification of character and antecedents of the applicants it was reported that they had been arrested in connection c with different FIRs registered ·against them, though subsequently both were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The Department being of the view that the applicants concealed material facts from the Selection Committee and did not correctly furnish the information 0 required in columns 13(A) and 14 of the applications submitted by them for recruitment to the post, declined the appointment. The appeals having been rejected by the Director General of Police, the candidates filed separate writ petitions at different times which came to be listed before two separate Benches of the High Court. E The contention of the candidates in both the writ petitions was that they were granted bail/released on personal bond, without having been arrested, and since they were never actually arrested and the case against them having ended in acquittal, it would be deemed that no case was ever F filed against them and, therefore, they did not suppress any information by replying in the negative to the queries contained in columns 13(A) and 14 of the application form. The Bench hearing the writ petition filed by the respondent in C.A. No.84 of 2008 accepted the contention of the writ G petitioner therein and allowed the writ petition, whereas the Bench hearing the writ petition of the appellants in C.A. No.85 of 2008 took a contrary view and dismissed the writ petition. The two judgments were challenged in the instant appeals. H STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. DINESH KUMAR 283 -'. ? The question for consideration before the Court A was: whether the manner in which the applicants appeared before the Magistrate and were released without being taken into formal custody, could amount to arrest for the purpose of the query in column 13A of the application form? B Answering the question in the affirmative and -.( disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The expression "arrest" has neither been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure nor in the Penal c Code or any other enactment dealing with criminal offences. Similarly, the expression "custody" has also not been defined in the Code. However, in view of sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 46 of the Code, it is clear that in order to make an arrest the police officer or o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.