SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 1016

2024 DHC 9940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. 2828 of 2024
Decided On : 23-12-2024
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Shreyasi, Mr. Shantanu Raj, Mr. Nimesh and Mr. Tridev Sagar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Arjit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Vats and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Anand Singh, Mr. Vinay Kaushik and Ms. Pooja Thayat, Advocates

Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Shreyasi, Mr. Shantanu Raj, Mr. Nimesh and Mr. Tridev Sagar, Advocates; Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State with Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Arjit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Vats and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates for R-1; Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Anand Singh, Mr. Vinay Kaushik and Ms. Pooja Thayat, Advocates for R/UPSC

The court denied anticipatory bail due to prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the Civil Services Examination system, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482; Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 464, 465, 471; Information Technology Act - Section 66D; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 89/91 - Anticipatory bail application - Allegations of fraud against candidate in Civil Services Examination regarding misrepresentation of attempts and disability status - Court finds prima facie evidence of conspiracy to manipulate examination system and denies bail. (Paras 1, 72, 73)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Principles governing grant - The court must consider the nature of allegations, potential for evidence tampering, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for investigation. (Paras 32, 68)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a candidate in the Civil Services Examination, is accused of fraudulently changing her name and misrepresenting her disability status to gain undue advantage in the examination process. The FIR alleges manipulation of details to circumvent rules regarding attempts and eligibility. (Paras 2, 28)

Findings of Court:
The court finds substantial evidence indicating a well-planned conspiracy to defraud the examination system, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the fraud. (Paras 73, 74)

Issues: The main issues include the legitimacy of the applicant's claims regarding her attempts and disability, and whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of the serious allegations. (Paras 1, 72)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's actions constituted a serious threat to the integrity of the examination process, warranting denial of anticipatory bail to facilitate a thorough investigation. (Paras 73, 74)

Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter as ‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Direct the release of the Applicant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the police in F.I.R No. 142 dated 19.07.2024 Under Section 420,464,465,471 of IPC , 66D of the IT Act and 89/91 of the Rights of Person with Disability Act 2016 P.S. Crime Branch; and

(ii) Set-aside the Order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court in Bail Application No. 1110/2024; and

(iii) Pass any such other orders as maybe deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts that are relevant to the present proceedings are set out as follows:

a) The applicant/petitioner in the present case is a recommended candidate in the Civil Services Examination (hereinafter as ‘CSE’), 2022 and was allocated the Indian Administrative Services (hereinafter as ‘IAS’) and got assigned to the Maharashtra Cadre.

b) The complainant, i.e. the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter as ‘UPSC’) is a Constitutional body entrusted to conduct various public services examinations for the All India Services including the coveted services such as IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS etc. through a common examination named CSE.

c) The applicant has been preparing for the said examination since the year 2012 by indicating her name as ‘Khedkar Puja DeelipRao’ for the first 9 attempts. During the course of appearing for the said attempts, she posed herself as an OBC (non-creamy layer) candidate, except in CSE-2013 where she claimed herself to be a General Category candidate.

d) In the year 2018, the applicant claimed herself as a candidate belonging to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (hereinafter as ‘PwBD’) category in the sub-category of Visual Impairment, along with the OBC-non-creamy layer.

e) Pursuant to several complaints received by the UPSC, an FIR bearing no. 142/2024 under Sections 420, 464, 465 , 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter as ‘ IPC ’) read with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act , 2000 and 89/91 of the Rights of person with Disability Act, 2016 was registered on 19th July, 2024 at PS - Crime Branch, New Delhi.

f) As per the allegations of the UPSC/complainant, despite exhausting all the attempts available to her, the applicant/petitioner appeared in CSE-2021 by circumventing the scrutiny pertaining to excess attempts made by her. The details of such tactics is as under:

Change in name from ‘Khedkar Puja DeelipRao’ to ‘Puja ManoramaDilipKhedkar’.

Wrong details in the Detailed Application form- I (hereinafter as ‘DAF-I’) regarding the number of attempts made by the applicant.

Introduction of disability in the year 2018 and change in the status of disability in the year 2021 by adding multiple disabilities.

g) After lodging of the said FIR, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (hereinafter as ‘DoPT’) issued a show cause notice bearing no. 14012/02/2024 AIS-III, asking for reasons as to why she should not be discharged from the services under the relevant rules of the IAS Probation Rules, 1954.

h) Thereafter, the UPSC released a press note dated 31st July, 2024, thereby, cancelling the provisional candidature of the applicant from CSE-2022 and permanently debarring her from any future UPSC examinations.

i) Apprehending her arrest in the said FIR, the applicant approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House (hereinafter as ‘learned Court below’) seeking anticipatory bail, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 8th August, 2024.

j) Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a recommended candidate in the CSE-2022 under the category of PwBD and had attempted the 5th time out of the 9th att

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top