ANTICIPATORY BAIL DENIED TO FORMER IAS PROBATIONER ON ACCOUNT OF WRONGLY CLEARING UPSC EXAMINATION

A Single Judge Bench of the learned Delhi High Court consisting of Hon’ble  Justice Chandra Dhari Singh deliberated on whether anticipatory bail made under Section 482 (direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita  (BNSS) should be granted in favour of the Applicant who has been wrongly accused of clearing the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam in 2022 by wrongly availing Other Backward Class (OBC) and disability quota benefits in the case of  Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another (Bail Application No. 2828/2024). The Application for instant Anticipatory Bail made by the Applicant has been dismissed and the interim protection which has been granted by the predecessor Bench of the Delhi High Court has been vacated vide judgement dated 23.12.2024.

FACTS

The Applicant in the present case is a recommended candidate under the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2022 who was allocated the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) under the Maharashtra Cadre after attempting the examination under the name “Khedkar Puja Deelip” for the first 9 attempts. During these 9 attempts, the Applicant represented herself as an OBC (non-creamy layer) except for CSE-2013 where she posed as a candidate under the General Category. The Applicant later posed as a candidate under the sub-category of Visual Impairment under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) in 2018 along with the OBC category within the non-creamy layer. A FIR bearing No. 142/2014  was registered against the Applicant on 19.07.2024 under Section 420  (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) , Section 464 (Making false document) , Section 465 ( Punishment for forgery) , Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (IPC); Section 66D (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 89 (Punishment for contravention of acts, rules or regulations) and Section 91 (Punishment for fraudulently availing any benefits meant for persons with disabilities) of the Rights to Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police. Subsequently, the UPSC released a press note on 31.07.2024 which led to the cancelation of the Applicant’s provisional candidature from CSE-2022 and debarment from appearing in any future examinations conducted by the UPSC.

On being aggrieved by the FIR, the Applicant approached the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House seeking anticipatory bail which was eventually dismissed vide 08.08.2024. This led the Applicant to approach the learned Delhi High Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the Applicant?

DECISION BY THE Hon’ble DELHI HIGH COURT

The Hon’ble Court perused through the common principles of anticipatory bail given under the judgements of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) which included:

1. The Applicant must show “reason to believe” that he has been arrested for a non- bailable offence.
2. If an application for anticipatory bail has been made to the High Court or Sessions Court, the learned Court must apply its own mind and decide on the legality of the relief sought.
3. The filing of a FIR is not a condition precedent to seeking of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
4. Application for anticipatory bail can be filed even after the FIR is registered, considering whether the arrest has been made or not.
5. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under Section 438 CrPC after a person has been arrested.

The learned Court also affirmed that it has to apply its mind according to circumstantial evidence with respect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Court after perusing through the material on record such as the FIR, affidavits filed by the father of the Applicant while furnishing details before the Electoral Board which indicated a lack of change in his marital status and the declaration made by the mother of the Applicant who was elected as the Sarpanch of Bhalegon, Pune; came to the conclusion that the Applicant had the intention to commit fraud while changing her name as it did not have anything to do with her marital status. It was also noted by the learned Court that the Applicant did not change her name in her passport or Bank accounts which led to dismissal of the contentions raised by the Applicant’s counsel.

The Hon’ble Court also interpreted the relevant rules of the CSE which mentioned that a candidate under the PwBD and OBC category would be eligible only for a maximum of 9 attempts and no additional attempts are included after the maximum criteria is fulfilled. Therefore, the rules convey that the maximum number of attempts by a candidate cannot exceed 9 even after the discovery of the disability. It was also noted by the Court that the Applicant had intended to manipulate the system through her connections in the government and had wrongly represented herself as a member of the said categories by misrepresenting her family’s annual income as well as forging her documents.

After considering the material on record in this case as well as the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to anticipatory bail, the Court has dismissed the application for interim bail and the interim protection which has been granted by the predecessor Bench of the Court has been repealed.

CONCLUSION

The learned Delhi High Court merely dealt with the aspect of the anticipatory bail by dismissing the application for the same after considering the relevant material on record. The Hon’ble High Court affirmed that an ulterior motive was present in the conduct of the Applicant which can be revealed only if the witnesses and evidence are not hampered during the course of investigation.

 

Parvati Arun

Legal Intern

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services