A stern observation by the Bombay High Court over the handling of a high-value land transaction case placed the focus squarely on the conduct of the Pune Police, with the court remarking that investigators appeared to shield the son of Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis while intensifying scrutiny of other individuals linked to the matter. The comments were made during a hearing on an anticipatory bail plea filed by Pune businesswoman Sheetal Tejwani, one of the accused in the Rs 300 crore Pune land deal case under investigation by Bhavdhan Police Station.
Justice Madhav Jamdar stated during the hearing that the police position suggested a pattern of selective action, prompting the court to question why investigators had acted decisively against some parties while seemingly soft-pedalling inquiries involving politically connected individuals. The remarks came as senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, representing Tejwani, pressed for protection from arrest after the sessions court in Pune declined her earlier plea.
The case centres on a land transaction valued at around Rs 300 crore, which the complainant alleges involved fraudulent documentation and misrepresentation of ownership rights. According to the prosecution’s account placed before the court, large sums exchanged hands as part of an agreement to transfer the property, but investigators contend that the documentation was forged and that certain accused persons played roles in facilitating the transaction. The court was informed that the probe had widened in the past weeks, with arrests made and notices issued to several individuals identified in witness statements and documentary records.
Tejwani’s counsel argued that she had cooperated with investigators and had not attempted to evade the inquiry, adding that the allegations against her were based primarily on statements that required cross-verification. Chavan contended that the police narrative did not satisfactorily explain why other individuals allegedly involved in the transaction, including the Deputy Chief Minister’s son, had not been subjected to comparable investigative rigor. He noted that Tejwani had provided documents, corresponded with investigators, and made herself available for questioning, asserting that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Justice Jamdar questioned the prosecution on its approach, seeking clarity on why certain lines of inquiry had not progressed and why the investigation appeared uneven. The judge noted that when allegations of forgery and financial wrongdoing arise in transactions of this scale, the police are expected to proceed uniformly, irrespective of the identities or affiliations of those involved. The court observed that the complaint prima facie suggested a complex chain of communications and agreements, making it important for investigators to scrutinise every participant with the same degree of diligence.
Pune Police representatives maintained that the investigation was ongoing and that no individual was being favoured. They stated that the Deputy Chief Minister’s son had been examined at earlier stages of the inquiry and that further steps would be taken if warranted by the evidence. The state assured the bench that the probe would be comprehensive and that all relevant actors would be examined objectively. The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that Tejwani’s role required further investigation and that custodial interrogation remained essential to recover documents and trace financial flows.
Court proceedings highlighted discrepancies in the investigative timeline, particularly concerning when individuals were called for questioning and when arrests were made. Chavan argued that these inconsistencies strengthened the defence position that Tejwani had been singled out. Justice Jamdar directed the police to explain these gaps and instructed them to present a clearer account of the investigative steps taken so far.
The judge also asked whether the complainant’s allegations regarding forged signatures and misrepresented property titles had been independently examined by handwriting experts or forensic teams, emphasising that technical verification was crucial in a case involving complex documentation. The prosecution confirmed that forensic steps had been initiated, including examination of disputed documents, though some reports were still awaited.
The hearing further revealed that negotiations over the land deal had extended over several months, involving multiple meetings between the parties. The complainant claims that the deal was structured to convey an appearance of legitimacy, masking misrepresentation at key stages. Defence counsel countered that Tejwani’s involvement was limited to advisory communication and that she neither benefited directly from the transaction nor signed any disputed documents.
India urged to hold firm on farm concessions in US trade talks 