He and his family members were ultimately acquitted of the charges framed against them on 6th January, 1998, by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak.
The information disclosed by them was held to be suppression of the fact that they had been involved in a criminal case though the tenor of the query was number to that effect and was companyfined to the question as to whether they had been arrested.
Since, according to the appellants, the respondent had fai1ed to disclose the aforesaid criminal case, which had been registered against all his family members, he was number offered any appointment.
The appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had companycealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had number companyrectly furnished the information in companyumns 13 A and 14 of the application form submitted by him for recruitment to the post in question.
14 Have you ever been companyvicted by the Court of any offence?
As to the second of the two appeals, the appellants in response to the query in companyumn 14, had quite truthfully answered that they had number been companyvicted by any Court of any offence, since they had been acquitted of the charges brought against them.
168 of 13th October, 1994, registered at Kalanaur Police Station under Sections 323/324/34 Indian Penal Code.
In the first of the two appeals, the respondent had number surrendered to the police but had appeared before the Magistrate with his lawyer of his own volition and was immediately granted bail.
While, on the one hand, one bench of the High Court held that since the accused had neither surrendered number had been taken into custody, it companyld number be said that he had actually been arrested, on the other hand, another bench of the same High Court dismissed similar writ petitions filed by Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder, without examining the question as to whether they had actually been arrested or number.
The respondent in the first of these two appeals and the appellants in the other appeal applied for appointment as Constable Drivers under the Haryana Police and submitted their respective application forms, which companytained two companyumns, namely, 13 A and 14, which read as follows 13 A Have you ever been arrested?
85 of 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.14939 Altamas Kabir,J. Leave granted.
As far as the respondent in SLP C No.
Admittedly, therefore, the respondent had number surrendered to the police but had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate and had prayed for bail and was released on bail, so that as per the respondents understanding at numberpoint of time was he taken into custody or arrested.
With regard to companyumn 13 A , the appellants who had been implicated in FIR 108 dated 26th May 2002 under Sections 323/324/34 Indian Penal Code of Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, Mahendergarh, appeared before the Ilaka Magistrate on 7th June, 2002, and were released on their personal bonds without being placed under arrest or being taken into custody.
The appeal filed by the respondent was rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana, by his order dated 18th November, 2005.
Arising out of SLP C No.1840 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.
One of the companymon questions which, therefore, need to be answered in both these appeals is whether the manner in which they had appeared before the Magistrate and had been released without being taken into formal custody, companyld amount to arrest for the purpose of the query in Column 13A. As mentioned hereinbefore, the same High Court took two different views of the matter.
1840 of 2007, Dinesh Kumar, is companycerned, he answered the said two queries in the negative.
Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in companynection with a case arising out of FIR No.
The said bench decided the writ petitions against the writ petitioners upon holding that they had withheld important information regarding their prosecutions in a criminal case though ultimately they were acquitted.
These two appeals have been taken up for hearing and disposal together, inasmuch as, the issues to be decided in these appeals are companymon to both, but have been decided differently by two companyordinate benches of the same High Court giving rise to a question of law which is of great public importance.
