Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. allowed the appeal, noting the submissions of the counsel and considering that she was cooperating with the investigation. The Court viewed that Puja was entitled to bail, hence set aside the impugned decision.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer shall release Puja on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two like sureties. The Court also directed that Puja shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation and shall not misuse her liberty, and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.
Background
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 the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (‘PwBD’) category in the sub-category of visual impairment and 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
Apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 of Penal Code 1860, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 89/91 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, she preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed.
[Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Criminal) No. 375/ 2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Kapil Garg, Adv. Ms. Shivani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Matloob, Adv. Ms. Prapti Shrivastava, Adv.