Police Reveal Puja Khedkar Family Case as Organized Crime, Not Simple Kidnapping

The investigation cannot progress without the accused in custody, police informed the court.

Mumbai:

In a Navi Mumbai courtroom this week, police presented allegations portraying the "truck cleaner kidnapping case" as organized crime rather than a simple road rage incident. The hearing addressed the anticipatory bail application of Dilip Khedkar, the primary accused and father of former IAS officer Pooja Khedkar, who had previously been involved in a controversy regarding alleged civil services examination irregularities.

Police explained that the case originated from what appeared to be a routine road accident on Navi Mumbai's Mulund-Airoli Road on September 13, when Dilip Khedkar's Toyota Land Cruiser allegedly made contact with a mixer truck.

According to investigators, an enraged Khedkar attacked the mixer driver, argued over damages, and then forcibly transported the truck's cleaner, Prahlad Kumar, in his own vehicle under the pretense of visiting the police station. Instead, authorities allege, Khedkar drove the cleaner to his Pune residence and confined him in the basement of his bungalow.

The police officer emphasized to the court that this was not a spontaneous conflict but a deliberate action where the victim was deceptively taken and unlawfully confined.

While attempting to locate the missing cleaner, investigators traced his phone signal to Pune. Upon police arrival, they claim Manorama Khedkar, Dilip's wife, denied them entry. She allegedly secured the bungalow gates and released dogs to intimidate the officers. Despite this resistance, Prahlad Kumar was eventually rescued from the premises.

The prosecution stated that during the police team's attempted entry, Dilip Khedkar, his driver (identified as Salunkhe), and their vehicle were all present at the property. Officers reported that Khedkar assured them, "We'll come to the police station ourselves," before promptly fleeing the premises.

Police also referenced a phone conversation with Manorama Khedkar, during which she allegedly stated, "We have nothing to do with this case. You do whatever you want."

The cleaner, Prahlad Kumar, is reportedly too frightened to provide a complete statement and has been avoiding investigators.

Police further asserted that both Dilip and Manorama Khedkar, despite being educated former government officials, have criminal histories. They were previously charged in a land grabbing case involving firearms, and several cases connected to their associates have been documented. Reports detailing these incidents have been submitted to the court.

The investigating team alleged that the accused have been uncooperative and have made significant efforts to destroy evidence.

Critical items, including the bungalow's DVR system, the SUV, and the mobile phones used, are all missing. Police indicated that the digital video recorder could have contained essential footage from the basement where the victim was held.

The investigation cannot advance unless the accused is in custody, police informed the court.

Manorama Khedkar received interim bail last Monday, but police alleged she has subsequently avoided all contact with investigators.

When police attempted to serve her notice, she did not respond. Her attorney reportedly told officers, "There is no contact with Manorama now."

Police accused the Khedkars of deliberately misleading the investigation. On October 4, when Dilip Khedkar's bail plea was filed, Manorama allegedly appeared at the police station after sunset—despite regulations prohibiting interrogation of female accused after sunset.

This timing was deliberate, police told the court, intended to prevent lawful questioning.

Police also disputed several claims in the accused's bail applications.

Manorama's petition stated that the victim received "good food and facilities." However, Prahlad Kumar alleged in his statement that he was given stale food—which he refused to eat even when hungry—and was released only after sustained police tracing efforts, not "on his own" as claimed.

Another point of contention arose from Dilip Khedkar's claim that the entire dispute stemmed from a ₹5,000 argument with the truck driver. Police challenged this claim in court with a pointed question: "Does any part of a Land Cruiser cost ₹5,000?"

They characterized the statement as an "obvious attempt" to trivialize the incident and mislead the judiciary.

Summarizing their argument, police told the court that this was not an isolated kidnapping but an organized crime committed by individuals with influence and resources.

"Such an act by a retired government official shows that he has no fear of the law," the police told the court.

Investigators questioned why, if the case were as minor as the accused claimed, the DVR system from the bungalow had been removed or destroyed.

"If this was simply a road rage misunderstanding, why erase the footage?" the police asked.