Sessions Court rejects anticipatory bail plea of accused in ₹1.05 crore PMC job fraud

he court held that the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation of the accused did not justify granting him anticipatory bail

A sessions court here has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Rajendra Babanrao Khedekar, an accused in an allegedly fake Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) recruitment case in which investigators claim more than ₹1.05 crore was collected from unemployed job aspirants by promising them civic jobs using forged appointment documents.

Additional sessions judge A K Sharma, in his order on Wednesday, observed that the allegations disclose a ‘well-organised job recruitment fraud’ in which unemployed youth were induced to pay large sums of money on the false promise of securing jobs in the PMC. (HT FILE)

Additional sessions judge A K Sharma, in his order on Wednesday, observed that the allegations disclose a ‘well-organised job recruitment fraud’ in which unemployed youth were induced to pay large sums of money on the false promise of securing jobs in the PMC. The court held that the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation of the accused did not justify granting him anticipatory bail.

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, persuaded him and several other unemployed persons to pay substantial amounts in exchange for PMC jobs. The complainant claimed he paid ₹5.5 lakh for a clerical post after being assured of an appointment.

To make the offer appear genuine, the accused allegedly arranged forged appointment letters, fabricated official documents bearing fake PMC seals and signatures, and even periodic salary credits into the complainant’s bank account. However, no actual appointment was provided. When the complainant eventually said that he wanted either the promised job or a refund, he was allegedly threatened.

The prosecution further alleged that several others, including Kailas Anand Dafal and his wife, were similarly cheated, indicating an organised network targeting unemployed youth seeking government jobs.

Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution told the court that the investigation revealed that around ₹1.05 crore had been collected from multiple victims. Investigators claimed to have seized forged appointment letters, fake PMC identity cards, service books, medical fitness certificates, salary vouchers and other fabricated documents allegedly used in the operation.

The investigating officer argued that custodial interrogation of Khedekar was necessary to trace the money trail, identify other victims and beneficiaries, recover additional evidence, and ascertain the full modus operandi of the alleged conspiracy.

Khedekar, through his counsel, denied the allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated. The defence argued that Khedekar himself was a victim and had previously submitted complaints to the PMC and Pune police commissioner without any action being taken. It also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, was associated with a charitable trust, had no connection with the principal accused, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Rejecting these submissions, the court observed that Khedekar was specifically named in the FIR and assigned an active role in inducing the complainant to part with ₹5.5 lakh for a PMC job. The court also noted that the investigation already indicated that more than ₹1.05 crore had been collected from several victims, suggesting a wider conspiracy.

The court further observed that the alleged salary credits into the complainant’s bank account appeared to be a calculated attempt to create the impression of genuine employment and sustain the deception. As the investigation is still underway to identify all those involved, trace the money trail and recover further evidence, the need for custodial interrogation cannot be overlooked, the court held.

In its order, the court observed that the allegations disclose “a serious organised economic offence affecting public confidence in government recruitment and involving substantial financial loss to several unemployed persons”. It held that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper a fair and effective investigation, and rejected the application.