New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notices to the Delhi Police and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) regarding the anticipatory bail plea of suspended IAS officer Puja Khedkar.
Khedkar approached the Delhi High Court challenging a district court's decision that denied her bail. The FIR alleges that she falsified her identity to gain additional attempts in the civil services exam.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, after reviewing the submissions, directed the investigating agency not to arrest Khedkar while the matter is under consideration, noting that an immediate arrest is not deemed necessary. A detailed hearing is scheduled for August 21.
The Delhi High Court observed that the trial court's order denying Khedkar's bail lacked substantial discussion, merely referencing the Public Prosecutor's claim about the involvement of others. The High Court has instructed the police not to arrest Khedkar until Friday, pending further proceedings.
During the hearing, the UPSC argued that Khedkar is the "mastermind" behind the alleged scheme and that her actions would not have been possible without assistance from others, supporting their position that custodial interrogation is necessary.
Khedkar's plea in the Delhi High Court follows the dismissal of her bail request by Delhi's Patiala House Court last week, which found the allegations against her--related to falsifying identity for extra attempts in the civil services examination--serious and warranting thorough investigation.
The trial court judge, Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala, stated that custodial interrogation of the accused is required to uncover the entire conspiracy and establish the involvement of other individuals. The judge opined that this is not a case fit for exercising discretionary powers of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused.
The court noted that the applicant/accused is charged with offenses punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC, 66D of the IT Act, and Sections 89/91 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The applicant is accused of cheating the complainant by misrepresentation.
The complainant (UPSC), in furtherance of the misrepresentation, allegedly prepared various documents to support her claims, indicating that the conspiracy was premeditated and executed over several years. The court observed that the accused could not have executed the conspiracy without assistance from either an outsider or an insider.
