The UPSC opposed pre-arrest bail for Puja Khedkar, calling the fraud’s severity unprecedented. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, it stressed the need for custodial interrogation. Authorities aim to uncover the full extent of her alleged fraudulent activities. The case has drawn significant legal and public attention.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) firmly opposed the granting of anticipatory bail to former IAS trainee Puja Khedkar, citing the “unprecedented gravity” of the alleged fraud committed by her.
In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the UPSC highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation to fully understand the extent of the fraudulent activities.
Khedkar is accused of misrepresenting information in her application for the UPSC Civil Services Examination 2022 and misusing benefits intended for the OBC and disability quotas. She, however, has denied all allegations.
The UPSC argues that thorough interrogation is essential to uncover the full scope of the fraud, including identifying any individuals who may have aided Khedkar. The Commission claims that she not only deceived a constitutional body but also defrauded the public.
The affidavit alleges that Khedkar manipulated the system to avail herself of examination attempts beyond the allowed limit. The UPSC contends that the alleged offenses were committed in a calculated manner over an extended period, with a series of deliberate misrepresentations.
Additionally, the Commission asserts that an investigation based solely on documents is inadequate.
It has indicated that the circumstances suggest a broader conspiracy involving multiple individuals, making effective custodial interrogation necessary to identify these accomplices and gather concrete evidence.
The UPSC has also pointed out that Khedkar misled authorities continuously throughout the recruitment process, exploiting loopholes to extend her examination attempts.
The affidavit notes that even prior to her selection as a Civil Services Officer, she appeared to have considerable influence, raising concerns about her potential to manipulate the system.
To bolster its argument, the UPSC referred to the High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to Khedkar. The High Court had noted that the complexity of the fraudulent scheme indicated a high likelihood of her interfering with a free and fair investigation.
Khedkar was denied pre-arrest bail by the High Court in December of last year, and prior to that, by a trial court.