The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to suspended Pune City tehsildar Suryakant Yewale in the Mundhwa land deal case while questioning the Maharashtra government’s position on the alleged role of a company in which Parth Pawar holds 99 per cent of the shares. The court also recorded the state Director General of Police’s view that the investigation required a more professional and detailed approach.
Justice Madhav J Jamdar questioned how the person holding 99 per cent of the shares in Amadea Enterprises LLP could be treated as unrelated to the alleged transaction while another director, who holds 1 per cent, had been made an accused. “Your stand as Investigating Officer [in the affidavit] is that the person who is having 99 percent shareholding is not responsible, and the one who is accused is the person having 1 percent shareholding. Is the person who is having 99% share, Mr Parth Pawar, not a beneficiary of this transaction?” the judge asked orally.
The FIR alleges that land in Mundhwa, Pune, classified as Mahar Watan land and leased to the Botanical Survey of India, was sold to Amadea Enterprises without the mandatory approval of the state government. Pawar is a director in the company, according to the report. The case concerns the legality of the land transaction as well as the administrative decisions that enabled the applicants to be declared owners.
The court’s observations came during Yewale’s anticipatory bail proceedings. The High Court had directed the state DGP and the investigating officer to respond to the plea on September 7 after noting a submission that Pawar had not been named as an accused because he was “very highly influential”. The report said the submission was not specifically attributed to any party.
The state’s position was defended by Additional Public Prosecutor SV Gavand, who opposed the bail plea and argued that custodial interrogation was required because the allegations were “very serious”. Senior advocate Harshad Nimbalkar, appearing for Yewale, argued that the allegations related to a July 1, 2025 order declaring the applicants owners of the land and a July 14, 2025 letter informing the Pune Sub-Divisional Officer about the purchase.
Nimbalkar submitted that even if Yewale’s order was illegal, it could be challenged, and that the FIR did not allege that it had been passed in exchange for “illegal gratification”. The High Court noted that Yewale had not misused the interim protection from arrest previously granted to him. It subsequently granted him pre-arrest bail on the assurance that he would cooperate with the investigation.
The DGP’s intervention has now placed the quality and direction of the probe at the centre of the case. After a detailed scrutiny of the investigation papers, DGP Sadanand Date informed the High Court that there was a need for a more professional and detailed investigation. Instructions were therefore issued to Pune Commissioner of Police Amitesh Kumar to conduct a further probe.
The case highlights the administrative importance of land classified under special legal categories and land held or leased for public purposes. The FIR’s allegation that the Mundhwa parcel was transferred without mandatory state approval means that the investigation will have to examine the approval process, the ownership declaration, the role of officials and the responsibilities of the company’s directors. The next phase of the inquiry will determine how those questions are addressed.
