Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by former Indian Administrative Service (‘IAS’) probationer Puja Khedkar seeking release on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in regard to First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 of the Penal Code, 18601 (‘IPC’), 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and 89/91 of the Rights of Person with Disability Act, 2016 lodged against her for alleged cheating and wrongly availing Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) and disability quota benefits, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. declined her anticipatory bail.
Background
Puja Khedkar was a recommended candidate in the Civil Services Examination (‘CSE’), 2022 and was allocated the Indian Administrative Services (‘IAS’) and got assigned to the Maharashtra Cadre. She had been preparing for said examination since 2012 by indicating her name as ‘Khedkar Puja Deelip Rao’ for the first nine attempts. During the attempts, she posed herself as a member of OBC, except in CSE-2013 where she claimed herself to be a General category candidate.
In 2018, Puja Khedkar claimed herself as a candidate belonging to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (‘PwBD’) category in the sub-category of visual impairment, along with the OBC non-creamy layer. Pursuant to several complaints received by the Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’), the above-mentioned FIR was registered on 19-07-2024.
As per allegations made by UPSC, despite exhausting all attempts available to her, Puja Khedkar appeared in CSE-2021 by circumventing the scrutiny relating to excess attempts made by her. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (‘DoPT’) issued a show cause notice to Puja Khedkar asking for reasons as to why she should not be discharged from the services under the relevant rules of the IAS Probation Rules, 1954.
On 31-07-2024, UPSC released a press note whereby the provisional candidature of Puja Khedkar to CSE-2022 was cancelled and she was permanently debarred from any future UPSC examinations.
Apprehending her arrest, Puja Khedkar approached the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House to seek anticipatory bail but the same was dismissed vide order dated 08-08-2024. Aggrieved, she approached this Court for the same.
Puja Khedkar submitted that Rule 3 of the CSE Rules, 2022 clearly provides for 9 attempts to a candidate under the OBC + PwBD category and thus, she had rightly mentioned the number of attempts availed in the said category. It was also mentioned that she had applied for a change in her name to add her mother’s name, which was done legally through a Gazette Notification issued in March 2021.
Puja Khedkar contended that her candidature had been cancelled by UPSC vide order dated 31-07-2024 but no opportunity to defend the allegations were provided to her and therefore, she had filed a separate petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) for which pre-arrest bail needed to be granted.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that one of the important factors while granting an anticipatory bail is whether there is a possibility of collecting incriminating evidence from a person and if their custody is necessary for the same.
It was noted that the main allegation on which the FIR was based was the fraud alleged to have been committed by Puja Khedkar by changing her name to manipulate UPSC’s system but as per Puja Khedkar, the same was done because of her parents getting divorced in 2020.
Further, the Court stated that the material on record clearly established that the petitioner had ulterior motive to change her name and that the same had nothing to do with the marital status of her parents. To reach this conclusion, the Court perused affidavits filed by Puja Khedkar’s father to furnish his details to the electoral board whereby there was no information regarding change in his marital status. It was also noted that Puja Khedkar’s mother had recently been elected as the sarpanch of Bhalegaon, Pune and had declared herself to be married.
Therefore, the Court refused to agree with Puja Khedkar’s contention as the documents provided by the State and her own affidavits filed before other agencies clearly hinted towards a well-planned conspiracy to dupe UPSC.
The Court found it evident that Puja Khedkar had provided wrong details about the number of attempts in various DAF-1 forms filled in different years. After perusing the relevant rules of CSE, the Court said that even though it is true that a person belonging to OBC (non-creamy layer) and PwBD is eligible for a maximum number of nine attempts, it cannot be said that the candidate shall be eligible for nine additional attempts.
The Court said that therefore, even if an aspirant discovers a disability during the course of their preparation for CSE, the number of attempts shall increase but not more than nine in total.
Further, the Court said that even though the authenticity of the disability certificates issued by the District Authority was doubted, it did not wish to comment on the same but opined that the officials involved in issuance of the certificates were somehow involved in the entire process of manipulating the system.
It was said that the apprehensions on part of the State and UPSC backed with evidence clearly established the influence exerted by Puja Khedkar and her family over the Government officials and institutions. It was also said that Puja Khedkar had deep rooted connections in the government department which could hamper the course of investigation if she is granted anticipatory bail.
The Court noted that as per the rules, a candidate belonging to the said category must show an income below 8 lakhs and Puja Khedkar mentioned her family income as 6 lakhs (mother’s income and declared nothing about her father’s income as she claimed to reside with her mother. It was further noted that Puja Khedkar’s family owned 23 pieces of immovable property as well as 12 vehicles and she herself had 3 luxury cars, which was not possible with a meagre family income of 6 lakhs.
Therefore, the Court was of the view that concealment of income had also been done in furtherance of a larger conspiracy to get benefits out of a scheme solely meant for people below a certain income limit.
The Court said that it had been prima facie established that the conduct of Puja Khedkar had been solely driven with the motive to dupe UPSC and the investigation revealed that she was not a fit candidate to avail the benefits meant for the disadvantageous groups. It was also said that there was a high possibility that the family members of Puja Khedkar had colluded with unknown powerful persons to get the certificates.
Further, it was said that in an offence of such a nature, the interrogation of the person accused is required to unearth the fraud committed and the Court opined that the steps taken by Puja Khedkar were part of a larger conspiracy to manipulate the system and the investigation in this regard, would be impacted if she is granted anticipatory bail.
The Court stated that the present incident was a classic example of fraud committed not only with a constitutional body but society at large and necessary interrogation was warranted to reveal all the aspects and attributes related to the said fraud.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and said that a strong case was made out against Puja Khedkar as her conduct was part of a larger conspiracy which would only be revealed if the case is investigated without there being any chance to hamper the witnesses and the evidence.
The interim protection granted to Puja Khedkar by the predecessor bench was vacated.
[Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9076, Decided on 23-12-2024]
Judgment by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Bina Madhavan, Advocate Shreyasi, Advocate Shantanu Raj, Advocate Nimesh, Advocate Tridev Sagar
For Respondents — ASC Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate Charu Sharma, Advocate Arijit Sharma, Advocate Vaibhav Vats, Advocate Nikunj Bindal, Sr. Advocate Naresh Kaushik, Advocate Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate Anand Singh, Advocate Vinay Kaushik, Advocate Pooja Thayat
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Sections 318(4), 335, 336(2), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
