W.P.(C) 13049/2026 $~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010423022026 + W.P.(C) 13049/2026, CM APPL. 60688/2026, CM APPL. 60689/2026 & CM APPL. 64439/2026 DELHI POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ayush Gaur, SPC, with Mr. Kushagra Sachdeva, Government Pleader, Ms. Shivranjani, Mr. Varun Parashar, Advs. versus SAURABH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 21.09.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition assails order dated 5 February 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 4329/2024. 2. The respondent was the applicant before the Tribunal. He had applied for selection to the post of Constable (Ex.) in the Delhi Police. His candidature was cancelled on the ground that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case following lodging of FIR 227/20 dated 22 1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter Signed By:POOJA DUTT Signing Date:26.09.2026 11:34 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13049/2026 May 2020 at PS Pataudi, Gurugram, Haryana. The respondent had disclosed the fact of the registration of the FIR, as well as the fact that he had been acquitted by the competent criminal court in the said proceedings, at time of his application. This, therefore, is not a case of non-disclosure. 3. Despite this, the petitioner cancelled the candidature of the respondent solely on the ground that he had been involved in a criminal case. The stand of the petitioner was that the respondent had not been honourably acquitted in the criminal case. 4. The Tribunal has not accepted the stand of the petitioner and has set aside the order cancelling the candidature of the respondent with consequential relief. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the Delhi Police has preferred the present writ petition. 6. We have heard Mr. Ayush Gaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ayush Gaur submits that the acquittal of the respondent was because the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that, therefore, it could not be treated as an honourable acquittal as would justify setting aside of the order cancelling the respondent’s candidature. 7. The Tribunal has, in para 2.5 of the judgment under challenge, reproduced paras 10 and 11, constituting the operative paragraphs of judgment of the criminal court dated 29 February 2023, and we deem Signed By:POOJA DUTT Signing Date:26.09.2026 11:34 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13049/2026 it appropriate to do likewise: “10. After going through the case file and hearing the learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences attributed to them. As per the prosecution version, оn 22.05.2020, the accused attacked the complainant Atul and also criminal intimidated the complainant with dire consequences of his life. To prove these facts, the prosecution has examined the material witnesses PW-2 to PW-6, i.e., the complainant, injured and eye-witness but the witnesses has not supported the prosecution version even to an inch, as PW-2 to PW-6 has deposed during their examination-in-chief that the accused present before the Court are not the ones who threatened to kill them with dire consequences of life, nor gave beatings to them or attack them on fateful day. As such, the very star witnesses examined by the prosecution were declared hostile on the request of the learned APP for the State and further, despite lengthy cross- examination by the learned APP for the State, no incriminating evidence has been brought on record against the accused by the prosecution. Hence, when the identity of the present accused persons has not been established on record by way of any evidence, then the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the commission of offences attributed to them, because nothing favourable could be brought on file by the prosecution from the cross-examination of the prosecution witness and the onus remained unestablished before the Court. 11. In view of the above discussion and findings, it can be safely said that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and they deserves to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Rohit, Saurabh, Lalit, Vikash, Sahil and Brajesh are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of the stipulated period of filing of revision/appeal. System Officer is directed to delete the names of the sureties from the CIS and documents, if any, of the sureties be also return after expiry of the period of appeal or revision. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” 8. Clearly, from a reading of the afore-extracted paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment of the criminal court, it is clear that there is complete acquittal of the respondent of the charges against him. The competent criminal court had found that there was nothing to indicate Signed By:POOJA DUTT Signing Date:26.09.2026 11:34 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13049/2026 that the acts of which the complainants had complained had been perpetrated by the respondent. The PWs had, during trial, confirmed that the respondent was not one of their assailants. The PWs were, therefore, declared hostile and subjected to detailed cross- examination. Despite cross-examination, the criminal court has arrived at a finding that the prosecution was unable to establish the identity of the respondent as the person who had belaboured the complainant. 9. The respondent was, therefore, acquitted of the charges against him following a finding that there was nothing to indicate that the respondent was involved in assaulting the complainant. 10. We may also note that the criminal court has not acquitted the respondent on benefit of doubt, but returning a finding that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is that the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If it is not so established, the prosecution has failed to make out his case. 11. Besides, para 10 of the order passed by the criminal court clearly holds that there was nothing to indicate that the respondent was actually the person who had assaulted the complainant. 12. In that view of the matter, we cannot agree with Mr. Gaur in his submission that the respondent was not honourably acquitted. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to disturb the Signed By:POOJA DUTT Signing Date:26.09.2026 11:34 W.P.(C) 13049/2026 findings of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly is dismissed in limine. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/yk Signed By:POOJA DUTT Signing Date:26.09.2026 11:34