Bombay High Court
KUNDAN JANKU GAIKWAD AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The applicant, a Tahsildar, was accused of misusing his quasi‑judicial powers under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to pass an order and issue a letter favoring the purchase of government land by Amadea Enterprises LLP. The land, originally owned by the Government of Maharashtra and leased to the Botanical Survey of India, was allegedly sold without any monetary consideration, implicating accused Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani and partner Digvijay Patil, while the influential partner Parth Pawar was not named. The prosecution sought custody under several offences of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that the order passed by the applicant was a quasi‑judicial act with no allegation of illegal gratification and that the interim protection previously granted had not been misused. Considering the need for further investigation and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The anticipatory bail application and the related interim application were both disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Tahsildar under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged misuse of quasi‑judicial powers.
- Whether the order passed under Section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 constitutes an offence warranting custodial interrogation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 201, 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 70B
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- quasi‑judicial order
- land fraud
- government land
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- investigation
- bail conditions
Judgment
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN VITTHAL
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2026
2026.10.01
23:00:44
+0530
Suryakant Gulabrao Yewale … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2026
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2026
Kundan Janku Gaikwad & Ors. … Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
______________________
Mr. Harshad V. Nimablkar a/w Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar,
Mr. Shivam Harshad Nimbalkar and Mr. Abhishek Ulhas Arote, for
the Applicant.
Mr. Atharva R. Bhingardeve a/w Mr. Saniya Patki i/by Mr. Arun S.
Sonavane for Intervenors/Vatandars in IA/469/2026.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sandeep Paigude (through VC) for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Dinkar S. Paigude (through VC) for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Nita Padvi (S.P. D. G. Off.) present.
Mr. Nikhil Etame (Police Constable), P. G. Office, Mumbai present.
Mr. Ankush Bangar (DYSP), D. G. Office Mumbai present.
______________________
Page 1
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 1 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Applicant Mr. Gavand, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State and Mr. Paigude, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.
2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-
arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 522 of 2025 registered with
Khadak Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under
Sections 201, 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 338,
340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, 40 Acres land out of the land
bearing Survey No. 88, Hissa No.1 to 26, situated at Mouje
Mundhwa, Pune City, totally admeasing 17 Hectares, 51 R is the
subject matter of the present crime. The said land is owned and is
in possession of the Government of Maharashtra as per the order
dated 13 September 1955 and by Mutation Entry No.1962 dated
24 October 1955, the name “Mumbai Sarkar” is recorded in the
7/12 extract of the said land. Since 1959, as per Government
Page 2
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
order, possession of the said land was given to Botanical Survey of
India on lease and the said lease has been renewed again for the
period from 1988 to 2038. As per the prosecution case, Accused
No.8-Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani was claiming to be the owner of
this property and the said property has been sold to M/s. Amadea
Enterprises LLP by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 20 May
2025. Although the said registered Sale-Deed mentions
consideration of Rupees Three Hundred Crores, as per the Affidavit
of Investigating Officer no monetary consideration whatsoever was
transferred by M/s. Amadea Enterprises LLP to said Accused No.8-
Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani. The said M/s. Amadea Enterprises
LLP has two partners namely Mr. Parth Pawar who is having 99%
share and Mr. Digvijay Patil who is having 1% share.
4. As per the prosecution case, by sale and purchase of the
government land, serious offence has been committed by the
Accused. However, the partner who is having 1% share i.e. Mr.
Digvijay Amarsinh Patil is made as Accused No.9, however, Mr.
Parth Pawar who is having 99% share in the said M/s. Amadea
Enterprises LLP has not been made accused.
Page 3
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
5. In view of above position and as said Parth Pawar is very
highly influential and the son of the Deputy Chief Minister of the
State of Maharashtra, this Court by order dated 7 September 2026
directed the Director General of Police as also the Investigative
Officer to file the Affidavits. Pursuant to the said direction, Mr.
Sadanand Date, Director General of Police, Mr. Amitesh Kumar,
Commissioner of Police and also Mr. Dattatraya Mahadev
Waghmare, the Assistant Police Inspector attached to Economic
Offences Wing, who is the Investigative Officer have filed
affidavits.
6. In the affidavit dated 24 September 2026 of the Director
General of Police, it has been stated that on detailed scrutiny of the
investigation papers, there is a need for more professional and
detailed investigation and, therefore, instructions have been issued
to the Commissioner of Police to carry out further investigation
and review the progress of the investigation every week. In the
said affidavit, it is further stated that the Commissioner of Police
has been instructed to submit progress report of the investigation
to the office of the Director General of Police within six weeks. It
Page 4
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
has been further stated that the office of the Director General of
Police will periodically monitor the progress of the investigation.
7. As far as the allegations against the present Applicant are
conerned, it is alleged that he has passed an order dated 1 July
2025 under section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 inter alia holding that the Applicants in said
Tenancy/70B/SR/01/2024 are the owners. The other allegation
against the present Applicant is that he has issued letter dated 14
July 2025 in his capacity as Tahsildar, Pune City, Pune, which is an
intimation to the Sub-divisional Officer Pune, Pune Sub-division
about the purchase of land by said M/s. Amadea Enterprises LLP
by registered Sale Deed dated 20 May 2025. The said letter dated
14 July 2025 was issued by the present Applicant on the basis of
the letter dated 26 May 2025 of the said M/s. Amadea Enterprises
LLP.
8. It is a submission of Mr. Nimbalkar, learned senior counsel
that by exercising quasi judicial power under the provisions of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“BTAL Act”),
which has been vested with the Applicant, in his capacity as
Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Pune City, he has passed
Page 5
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
said order dated 1 July 2025, in Tenancy/70B/SR/01/2024. He
submitted that assuming that order passed is an illegal order, there
is a remedy of challenging the same. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that in any case the said order is quasi-judicial order and
there is no allegation that the same is passed for illegal
gratification. It is further submitted that the said letter dated 14
July 2025 has been issued only as an intimation letter regarding
letter dated 26 May 2025, submitted by said M/s. Amadea
Enterprises LLP. It is submitted that the Applicant will cooperate
with the investigation.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the
Respondent-State submitted that the allegations against the
present Applicant are very serious, requiring custodial
interrogation. He submitted that now the further investigation of
this case will be conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the
Director General of Police by letter dated 19 September 2026.
10. As per the prosecution case, there are very serious
allegations against Acused No.8 and the said M/s. Amadea
Enterpirses LLP, of which said Parth Pawar is a partner having 99%
share and Accused No.9-Digvijay Amarsinh Patil is having 1%
share in the said LLP. The allegations are concerning purchase of
Page 6
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
Govenrment Land admeasuring 40 Acres situate at Mauje
Mundhwa, Pune which is prime locality of Pune. As noted earlier,
Director General of Police in the affidavit has stated that there is
need of more professional and detailed investigation and also
stated that he will personally monitor the investigation.
11. As far as the allegations against the present Applicant are
concerned, the allegation is that he has passed an order dated 1
July 2025 in said Tenancy/70B/SR/01/2024 in favour of the
Applicants who filed said proceedings and that the Applicant has
issued said communication dated 14 July 2025.
12. As far as said order dated 1 July 2025 is concerned, Mr.
Nimbalkar, learned senior counsel is right in contending that that
the order has been passed by the Applicant in his quasi judicial
capacity as Tahsildar alias Agricultural Land Tribunal, Pune City
under the provisions of the BTAL Act. There is no allegation that
said order has been passed for illegal gratification.
13. This Court by order dated 5 January 2026 has granted
interim protection to the Applicant. There is nothing on record to
show that the said protection has been misused. Mr. Nimbalkar,
learned senior counsel states that the Applicant will cooperate with
the investigation.
Page 7
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
14. Thus, for above reasons, the case is made for grant of
Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection
with C.R. No.522 of 2025 registered with Khadak
Police Station, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the
like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when necessary.
(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and
residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change
thereto.
(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
Page 8
PPN
905.ABA-8.26.DOC
(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
15. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
16. As the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of, nothing
survives in the Interim Application and same is also disposed of.
17. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are of
prima facie in nature.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 9
PPN
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.