MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised significant concerns about the police investigation into a controversial land deal in Pune, hinting that authorities may be protecting Parth Pawar, son of Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, by leaving him out of the FIR.
A single judge bench led by Justice Madhav Jamdar questioned the prosecution while considering the pre-arrest bail application of businesswoman Sheetal Tejwani, one of the accused in the case.
Justice Jamdar pointed out that Parth Pawar, a major stakeholder in the involved firm, was not mentioned in the FIR, directly asking, “Is the police shielding the son of the deputy chief minister and only pursuing others?”
Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh responded that the investigating officers would take necessary legal action.
The sale of 40 acres of land in the upscale Mundhwa area of Pune for Rs 300 crore to Amadea Enterprises LLP, where Parth Pawar holds a majority stake, has come under scrutiny after it was revealed that the plot belongs to the government and should not have been sold. Allegations arose that the firm was exempted from paying Rs 21 crore in stamp duty as well.
A committee led by the Joint Inspector General of Registration (IGR) found Digvijay Patil (Pawar’s business partner and cousin), Sheetal Tejwani (who held the power of attorney for the land sellers), and sub-registrar Ravindra Taru culpable. They were named in an FIR filed at a Pune police station.
Officials stated that Parth Pawar was not included in the FIR because his name did not appear on any documents.
Tejwani was arrested on December 3 by the Economic Offences Wing of the Pune Police and remains in custody until December 11.
Subsequently, a second FIR was filed against her at the Bavdhan police station in the same matter, leading her to file for anticipatory bail.
Tejwani’s lawyers, Rajiv Chavan and Ajay Bhise, contended that the second FIR was unwarranted as the investigation by the Pune EOW was still ongoing.
Public Prosecutor Deshmukh argued that since Tejwani sought pre-arrest bail from the concerned sessions court, her petition to the high court was an abuse of legal processes.
Upon hearing the bench’s inclination to dismiss the plea, Tejwani’s counsel withdrew it.
In her application, Tejwani claimed the land deal was a legitimate registered transaction.
She stated that the case lacked the essential elements of any cognizable offense or “Mens rea” (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing) on her part, emphasizing that she was acting as a properly designated holder of Power of Attorney for the legal owners.
Tejwani argued that the same transaction and documents were already under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, making the second FIR repetitive and burdensome.
The allegations in the FIR are primarily civil-revenue in nature and lack any criminal intent, relying on incorrect assumptions about stamp duty and land title.
The Opposition has claimed that the true market value of the “Mahar watan” land was significantly higher than Rs 300 crore.
The term “mahar watan” refers to land granted under a hereditary system for labor provided to local administration, and such lands cannot be sold without state government approval.
Amid escalating political tensions, Deputy CM Ajit Pawar stated that Parth and his business partner were unaware that the land belonged to the government, asserting that the controversial transaction has since been annulled.
