Questions have been raised over the reported deployment of police personnel at entrepreneur Rana Suryavanshi’s farmhouse in Kalathan No. 1, Indapur, on 27 October, even though Suryavanshi was reportedly not present there. The details have been reported by Lokmat – Pune, but the police have not publicly clarified who ordered the deployment or why it was considered necessary.
The reported deployment is part of a wider controversy surrounding an alleged attack on Suryavanshi, his earlier Y-plus security cover and activity at the farmhouse. Lokmat – Pune reported that Suryavanshi was said to be absent from the property on the day police were posted there. The report did not include an official police order, deployment register or statement confirming the reason for the security arrangement.
Questions have also been raised over reported visits by senior police officers from Solapur and Baramati to the farmhouse before the alleged attack. The purpose of those visits, the identities of the people they met and the reason for the meetings have not been officially disclosed, according to the report.
Lokmat – Pune further reported that six vehicles were said to have reached the farmhouse at night after Suryavanshi reportedly left Ruby Hall Hospital on 25 October. These details were presented as information being discussed in the Indapur and Baramati areas, rather than as findings confirmed by an official investigation. The report said that the police administration had maintained confidentiality about the case and that investigating officers and the Baramati additional superintendent of police had not commented.
The security arrangements have added another layer to the questions. Suryavanshi had earlier been provided Y-plus security, but the Home Department has since withdrawn that cover, according to the report. He is currently said to have one armed security guard. The report did not establish the official basis on which the earlier security decision was taken or identify the authority that approved it.
Questions have also been raised about the deployment of police personnel despite the reported presence of private armed guards at the farmhouse. The unresolved issues include who requested the deployment, which authority approved it, whether a written order was issued and how the public cost of the arrangement was recorded. These are administrative questions that require documentary clarification rather than inference from the reported movements around the property.
A representation submitted on 28 October to the Chief Minister and Home Minister by Dattatray Ramdas Jagtap and Santosh Ramdas More sought an impartial inquiry into the alleged attack, activities at the farmhouse and reported work on a purported helipad in the riverbed. The petitioners asked authorities to examine the call detail records and tower locations of senior police officers who allegedly visited the farmhouse, along with CCTV footage of the property.
The representation also sought scrutiny of the appointment and payment of personnel assigned to Suryavanshi’s escort team. It alleged that thousands of tipper-loads of murum had been used to create a helipad in the riverbed at Kalathan and asked authorities to verify whether royalty had been paid, permissions obtained, tenders issued and payments made. The representation further called for an examination of the roles of revenue officials and the tehsildar. These remain allegations and demands for inquiry, not established findings in the supplied material.
The case therefore involves two separate verification questions: what security decisions were formally taken in relation to Suryavanshi, and whether any unauthorised work was undertaken on public or environmentally sensitive land. Establishing the facts would require the police deployment order, security assessment records, escort-team records, CCTV footage, relevant land and revenue permissions, and an official response from the police and district administration. No such documents or official explanations were included in the supplied report.
