Baramati law and order came under criticism after MLA Rohit Pawar demanded an inquiry into the decision to provide Y-plus security to entrepreneur Rana Suryavanshi and questioned the handling of an attack case involving him. Pawar also called for a review of the proposed Torrent project and alleged that residents had not been adequately taken into confidence.
Speaking to reporters at Malegaon, Pawar said the reasons behind granting security should be examined before the facts of the attack case had been fully established. He also questioned why three friends of Suryavanshi had not yet been located and why their search and questioning had not been completed.
Pawar said a special investigation team headed by Sadanand Date had been assigned responsibility for the inquiry, but alleged that the investigation was progressing slowly. He also sought clarity on when Suryavanshi left the hospital. According to Pawar, investigators should examine whether political or business interests played a role in the decision to provide security.
Pawar called on the Home Department to intervene and establish the facts. He also appealed to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar to take up the matter. Pawar said action should be taken against those damaging Baramati’s reputation.
The MLA separately alleged that incidents involving extortion, robbery and gang conflict had increased in Baramati. He questioned how offenders could be controlled if gang-related incidents were taking place in front of the police. Pawar also raised concerns about the safety of girls travelling outdoors after evening hours because of alleged harassment by young men on the roads.
The statements place responsibility for public safety and the investigation firmly on the district administration and police authorities. The report does not include a response from the police, the Home Department or the officials responsible for the security decision, and it does not provide details of the security assessment on which the Y-plus protection was based.
Pawar also opposed the proposed location of the Torrent project, saying local residents had raised objections. He urged the government to consider moving the project elsewhere and argued that offering farmers Rs 5,000 would not resolve their concerns. He called for decisions on the project to be taken only after residents had been consulted.
The two issues raise separate administrative questions: how security classifications are decided in an individual case, and how public authorities are handling local objections to a proposed project. Pawar’s remarks seek further investigation into the security decision and a broader review of the project’s proposed location. No official decision to relocate the Torrent project is reported in the supplied account.
