Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Landing a government bank job is a dream for many in India, but what happens when a pending criminal case clouds the horizon? Imagine this: You've cleared the exams, interviews, and now selection—but an accusation under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, looms large. The burning question is: I was made an accused in a crime under 281 of BNS. Now I have been selected for a government bank job. Does the crime under 281 of BNS stand in the way of my appointment?
In this post, we dive deep into the legal nuances, drawing from court judgments and general employment principles. Note: This is general information based on available precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Section 281 BNS deals with rash and negligent driving endangering human life, akin to old IPC Section 279. It's a cognizable, bailable offense often linked to traffic mishaps causing hurt or injury. Courts frequently see FIRs under Sections 281 and 125 (voluntarily causing hurt) together, especially in accident cases. Sri. Mahaveer Kothari vs State of Karnataka - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15008
For instance, in one case, proceedings under Sections 281 and 125(B) BNS were quashed after an amicable settlement where the injured party received medical costs and had no objection to dropping charges. The court noted: Court may quash criminal proceedings upon parties reaching an amicable settlement, provided that such resolution is voluntary and done without coercion.Sri. Mahaveer Kothari vs State of Karnataka - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15008
Similar patterns emerge in multiple petitions where accused sought quashing for offenses including Section 281 BNS alongside 125, 110, 49, and MV Act violations, often traffic-related. Sri.Mukesh Singh vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 30527Sri.Mukesh Singh vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 46485Sri.Mukesh Singh vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 73034
Government bank jobs (e.g., via IBPS, SBI) mandate character and antecedent verification. A pending criminal case may impact appointment, but it's not an automatic disqualification—especially for non-heinous, compoundable offenses like Section 281 BNS.
Key factors:- Nature of offense: Traffic violations are typically seen as minor compared to moral turpitude crimes (e.g., corruption, violence). Courts often quash such FIRs on compromise, promoting harmony. Jatin Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 444- Stage of case: Pending FIR/trial vs. acquittal/closure matters. Non-disclosure can lead to termination.- Bank rules: Service regulations (e.g., SBI PO terms) require disclosing criminal cases. Verification involves police reports; suppression invites action.
The provided legal documents do not directly address Section 281 BNS's effect on bank job eligibility. No rulings link it to employment disqualification. The sole BNS 281 reference is: Petitioner sought quashing of FIR based on a compromise with the complainant, who admitted to having no objection... The court found the compromise genuine and noted that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.Jatin Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 444
Other docs cover unrelated Income Tax Act Section 281 (void transfers), irrelevant here. Tax Recovery Officer II, Sadar, Nagpur VS Gangadhar Vtshwanath Ranade - 1998 7 Supreme 268Nitin Nagarkar VS Income-tax Officer - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 761Corporation Bank, Rep. by its Authorised Officer/Assistant General Manager VS Commissioner, Income Tax department - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1051
Courts liberally quash Section 281 proceedings via compromise, signaling these aren't career-enders:
Bail is routine: Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Seen in unrelated but illustrative BNS cases. Rajesh Kumar R.S. S/o. Radhakrishnapillai Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 476SURESH.K.A S/o. ANANDHAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 709
Organized crime angles (Section 111 BNS) don't apply to standalone 281 cases; those require multiple charge sheets over 10 years. Mukul Chauhan vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 297Anshul Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 343
Typically:1. Disclosure mandatory: In application forms/verification affidavits.2. Police verification: Local station reports case status.3. Departmental scrutiny: Minor/pending cases often lead to provisional appointment with case monitoring.4. Supreme Court precedents (outside docs): Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) holds pending acquittal cases don't bar unless moral turpitude proven. Non-serious cases allow employment.
If quashed (common for 281 via compromise), it clears hurdles. Jatin Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 444
Risks of non-disclosure:- Termination post-joining.- Bar from future exams.
Without direct precedents, outcome depends on facts—disclosure is safest.
| Aspect | Impact of Section 281 BNS ||--------|---------------------------|| Severity | Low (traffic offense, bailable) || Quashing Likelihood | High via compromise Jatin Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 444Sri. Mahaveer Kothari vs State of Karnataka - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15008 || Job Effect | May delay, not bar if disclosed; monitor case || Best Step | Disclose + resolve FIR |
A pending Section 281 BNS case typically does not outright block bank appointment if handled transparently. Courts' compromise-friendly stance aids resolution. Prioritize legal aid for peace of mind.
Disclaimer: Laws evolve; this draws from cited docs (e.g., Jatin Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 444) and general norms. Seek professional advice tailored to your situation.
#BNS281 #BankJobEligibility #LegalIndia
No.44/2025 dated 07.03.2025, registered by Hebbal Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 106(1), 281 & 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the Petitioner has been arrayed as the Sole Accused. ... The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.2591/2025 registered against the petitioner, pursuant to complaint lodged by second respondent/ defacto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(b), 106(1) of the BNS, 2023 reg....
and 125 (a) of BNS to Sections 281 and 106 (1) BNS, this Court recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate, inclined to close the petition. ... Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.326 of 2024 has been registered for the offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, 2023 and thereafter, no proper investigation has been conducted and so far, they have not identified the accused and not filed the final report. ... Howe....
registered for the offences punishable under Section 125 (a) and 281 of BNS 2023 is before this Court seeking the relief. ... The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State has placed on record the intimation of grounds of arrest served on the accused under Section 47(1) of BNSS 2023. 4. ... OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-III) BENGALURU CITY AND THE IMPUGNED REQUISITION DATED 14.03.2025 AT (ANNEXURE-D) MADE BY R....
under Sections 281 and 105 of BNS. ... Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that the petitioner drove his vehicle in one way on opposite side and caused the accident. As result there is death of 4 persons. ... AND 105 OF BNS OF 2023. ... JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.302/2025 of Kunigal Police Statio....
10.As far as the offence under Section 281 of BNS is concerned, the same is with respect to rash driving or riding on the public way. ... seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.541 of 2025, dated 27.10.2025, on the file of the first respondent police, which was registered for the offences under Sections 270, 281 and 285 of BNS. ... not be made out. ... 11.As far as offence under Section 285 of BNS is concerned, the same is with respect to ca....
for offences punishable under Sections 105, 281 of BNS and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. ... ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.347/2025 of Jeevan Bhima Nagar (Indiranagar) Traffic Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 105, 281 of BNS and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act subject to following conditions: p class ... JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of BNSS praying to gr....
and 125(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. ... Traffic Police Station, Bangalore) pending on the file of The Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Traffic Court II), Bangalore for the offences punishable under sections 281 and 125(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 vide Annexure - Sections 281/section_ref
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.540 of 2025 of Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023; Section 184 of M.V.Act and ... As seen from FIR, the offences registered against the petitioner/accused No.2 are under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of BNS, 2023; Section 184 of M.....
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.540 of 2025 of Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023; Section 184 of M.V.Act and ... As seen from FIR, the offences registered against the petitioner/accused No.2 are under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of BNS, 2023; Section 184 of M.....
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.540 of 2025 of Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023; Section 184 of M.V.Act and ... As seen from FIR, the offences registered against the petitioner/accused No.2 are under Sections 125, 281, 110, 49 of BNS, 2023; Section 184 of M.....
12. Continuing unlawful activity under explanation (ii) of Section 111(1) of the BNS means an activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such an offence. Furthermore, an organised crime syndicate under Explanation (i) of sub-section (1....
13. While interpreting the analogous provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, which mandates the existence of at least two charge sheets in respect of a specified offence in the preceding ten years, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane [(2015) 14 SCC 272] has unequivocally held as follows: 11. Explanation (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of BNS define an organised crime syndicate and a continuing unlawful activity, respectively. “10. Section 111 (1) explicitly stipulates that to ....
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.223/2025 of Vallikkunnam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii) and 78(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 3. The petitioner is a senior Congress Party leader. The prosecution case is that on 11.01.2025 at around 03.00 PM, while t....
3. The prosecution case is that, on 13.02.2025 at 03.00 PM, the defacto complainant’s brother committed suicide by hanging in his residence. It is alleged that the petitioner instigated the victim to commit suicide. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.138/2025 of Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case was originally registered under Section 194 of BNSS . Subsequently, Section 108 of BNS is added. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This ....
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S. It is contended that in the FIR, it is alleged that the driver of vehicle bearing No. RJ-25-CB-4135, drove the vehicle rash and negligently and caused injuries to several persons and one Golu Meena succumb to death. Initially the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 125(a), 281, 106(1) of BNS and later on, Sections 109(1), 103(2), 126(2) and 115(2) of BNS were added. It is also ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
