LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs Union of India & Ors.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 42Decided 16 Jan 2023
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Bela M. Trivedi · Rastogi · Trivedi as author

Background

The petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a constable in November 2007. In 2009 he was charged with having concealed, in his character-verification certificate, that an FIR for assault-type offences (Sections 323, 324, 341 IPC) had been registered against him in 2003 and that a charge sheet was pending in court when he submitted the form. He admitted the mistake; the Commandant initially imposed only a one-stage pay cut on account of his youth, but a senior officer revised this, ordered a fresh inquiry, and he was removed from service in March 2010, with his departmental appeal and revision both failing. After two rounds before the Rajasthan High Court (including a reconsideration in light of Avtar Singh vs Union of India, after which CISF again found him unsuitable), a single judge ordered his reinstatement, but the Division Bench reversed that and upheld the removal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Applying the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav, it held that information given to an employer about arrest, prosecution or a pending case must be true; deliberate suppression bears directly on a candidate's character and fitness, especially for a disciplined armed force like CISF that guards airports, ports, atomic energy and space installations. The authorities had considered the matter afresh as directed, given reasons, followed due process and acted without malice, so there was no ground for the High Court to interfere under Article 226. The Court reiterated that judicial review examines the fairness of the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision or the proportionality of the punishment, and that generalisations about a candidate's youth or career prospects should not drive the verdict.

Lesson Learnt

When applying for a government job, disclose every criminal case (pending, closed or compromised) exactly as the form asks; hiding it is treated as a separate and serious misconduct even if the underlying case was minor. Courts will rarely overturn a fairly conducted disciplinary decision merely because they might have chosen a lighter penalty.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case