In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court recently refused anticipatory bail for the ex-IAS trainee Puja Khedkar accused of forgery and cheating. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dealing with the matter said the charges were serious enough to be dealt with in the police custody. The ruling from the court indicates that there is a need to ensure that public service exams and the judicial process are not compromised.Background of the Case The case against Puja Khedkar has the basis of document forgery and manipulation during her training period. A complaint that a woman lodged with the concerned authority suggested that she used false documents to obtain the wrong benefits, for which otherwise she was not entitled to. The charges are major criminal offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of a valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code. This investigation had revealed that the forged documents had been used to gain an inappropriate advantage in this extremely competitive process of selection to IAS. Such acts, if proved, would seriously vitiate the credibility of one of India's most premier institutes. Observations of the Court The Delhi High Court, while rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail moved by Khedkar, stated that custodial interrogation was necessary in cases related to forgery and cheating. In this regard, the court observed that custodial interrogation is helpful in revealing the broader conspiracy, if any, and also to investigate allegations properly. Justice Sharma said that seriousness of the alleged acts by Khedkar lies in the fact that public confidence in administrative services is the most essential. Any act of dishonesty or manipulation in this sphere undermines the faith of citizens in governance and administrative systems. The court further added that granting anticipatory bail in such cases would hinder the investigation and could even allow the accused to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Defense Arguments Khedkar's counsel argued that allegations were prompted by malice and were totally baseless. The argument put forward by the lawyers on behalf of Khedkar also said that custodial interrogation was entirely unnecessary in the first instance since Khedkar had all along cooperated and even handed over all documents required to be in the case. Another defence that the counselor provided for her status being a first offender and previous contribution made while training to become IAS. This is landmark ruling, where the judiciary has laid down a precedent for cases about alleged misconduct in public service.