The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to Puja Khedkar, a former IAS trainee, who is accused of fraudulently securing her selection in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) by misrepresenting her identity to claim benefits under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) categories. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh presided over the matter, underlining the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth.

Puja Khedkar, after being selected for the IAS in 2022, faced allegations of falsifying her caste and physical disability credentials to exceed the permissible number of attempts for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination. A complaint was filed by the UPSC with the Delhi Police, leading to the registration of an FIR against Khedkar under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The UPSC, after investigating the matter, canceled her selection and permanently debarred her from appearing for any future examinations, citing gross violations of examination rules. It noted that Khedkar’s actions undermined the sanctity of the selection process and violated the principles of fairness and meritocracy.

Khedkar initially approached the Patiala House Court for anticipatory bail, which was denied on August 1, 2024. The trial court observed that the allegations were severe and involved a systematic attempt to exploit reservation policies meant for disadvantaged groups. The court also directed the Delhi Police to widen the scope of their investigation to examine whether similar fraudulent practices had been adopted by others.

Following this denial, Khedkar sought relief from the Delhi High Court, seeking anticipatory bail to avoid custodial interrogation. Her counsel argued that she was being targeted unfairly and that custodial interrogation was not necessary, as all relevant documents were already in the possession of the investigating authorities.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected Khedkar’s plea for anticipatory bail, noting that the allegations were of a grave nature and raised serious concerns about the integrity of the public service selection process. The Court vacated the interim protection granted to Khedkar in August, stating that custodial interrogation was essential to fully investigate the conspiracy and identify other potential offenders involved.

The Court remarked, “The actions of the petitioner appear to be part of a larger conspiracy aimed at manipulating the reservation system for personal gain. Such acts undermine the rights of genuinely disadvantaged individuals who rely on these provisions for social upliftment.”

The High Court cited several key factors in denying anticipatory bail:

1. Prima Facie Case: The Court found that there was prima facie evidence to support the allegations of forgery, cheating, and misuse of reservation benefits.
2. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: Justice Singh observed that custodial interrogation was crucial for uncovering the full extent of the alleged fraud and determining if other individuals were complicit in similar activities.
3. Public Interest: The Court held the importance of preserving the sanctity of the UPSC selection process, noting that Khedkar’s actions were not only illegal but also detrimental to the principles of equity and meritocracy.
4. Impact on Genuine Candidates: The Court stated, “Such fraudulent claims deprive deserving candidates of their rightful opportunities and erode public trust in the system.”

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Khedkar’s counsel contended that the allegations were exaggerated and that there was no direct evidence linking her to the alleged forgery.
• It was argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, as all relevant documents had already been submitted to the authorities.
• The counsel also submitted that the petitioner was being subjected to undue harassment despite cooperating fully with the investigation.

Prosecution’s Arguments

• The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, asserting that the allegations were serious and required thorough investigation.
• It was argued that the petitioner’s fraudulent actions deprived deserving candidates of their rightful opportunities and violated the sanctity of the civil services examination process.
• The prosecution emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to trace the origins of the forged documents and uncover any broader conspiracy.

On August 12, the High Court had granted her interim protection from arrest. With today's order, the same would stand vacated.

Case Title: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar Vs State of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: BA No. 2828/2024
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh