Pune land deal: HC asks whether police protecting Dy CM’s son Parth Pawar; state says probe still on

After perusing that Parth was named in the FIR, Justice Jamdar asked whether the police were protecting the son of the Deputy CM and were only investigating or prosecuting others.

The Pune land deal has been embroiled in controversy as the land in Mundhwa, that fell under the category of Mahar Watan land and was leased to the Botanical Survey of India, was sold to Amadea Enterprises LLP. (File Photo)

The Bombay High Court Wednesday asked whether the Maharashtra Police were protecting Parth Pawar, son of Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, and why he was not being investigated in connection with the alleged irregularities in a land deal involving a firm linked to Parth. A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar posed the question while hearing an anticipatory bail plea by Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani, who has been booked in the case.

After perusing that Parth was not named in the FIR, Justice Jamdar asked whether the police were protecting the son of the Deputy CM and were only investigating or prosecuting others.

However, Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh said the police is investigating the case and the probe was still on and it will take necessary action as per law if anything is revealed in future.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Pune city police had last week arrested Sheetal Tejwani, who held power of attorney for 272 watandars of Mahar Watan land in Mundhwa for selling it to Amadea Enterprises LLP, in which Parth is a partner.

However, senior advocate Rajiv Chavan and advocate Ajay Bhise representing Tejwani told the HC that she was seeking pre-arrest bail in the second FIR registered with Bavdhan police station in Pimpri Chinchwad against Tejwani and others.

Tejwani in her plea claimed that the FIR in question “did not disclose essential ingredients of any cognisable offence or mens rea (criminal intention) on the applicant’s part, who acted only as a duly constituted Power of Attorney holder of the lawful owners.”

Tejwani added, “The same transaction and documents are already under investigation by the EOW, making the second FIR duplicative and oppressive.”

Story continues below this ad

“The insinuation of criminality in the present FIR is wholly unfounded and motivated, as the applicant’s role is confined merely to that of a duly constituted Power of Attorney holder acting on behalf of the lawful owners of the subject property,” the plea added.

Her lawyers argued that there was “not a single allegation of personal gain, dishonest intention, deception or misappropriation attributable to Tejwani” and her implication in the said FIR is therefore not only unwarranted but reflects a mechanical and overzealous invocation of the criminal law machinery in a matter that is inherently civil–revenue in nature.”

However, Public Prosecutor Deshmukh opposed the plea and said that Tejwani had filed anticipatory bail plea before the competent sessions court and had sought similar relief. Therefore, her present plea before HC was “abuse of process of law” and the same be dismissed.

After the bench said it was not inclined to entertain the plea and would impose Rs 5 lakh cost on the applicant, Tejwani’s lawyers on her instructions sought its withdrawal.

Story continues below this ad

“Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as such,” the HC said.