Pune: Additional sessions judge D S Deshmukh earlier this week rejected the second bail application of suspended sub-registrar Ravindra Balkrishna Taru in Mundhwa govt land deal case.The court on Aug 17 observed that Taru had failed to show any change in circumstances since his earlier bail plea was rejected in Feb. It also rejected his plea for parity with co-accused Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani, observing that the record indicated Taru had played an active role in facilitating registration of the disputed sale deed on a nominal stamp paper of Rs500. The court, while rejecting the parity plea, referred to an alleged loss of Rs6 crore to the state government.District govt pleader Pramod Bombatkar, opposing the bail plea, argued that it was Taru’s duty to verify the records before registering the document and that the 7/12 extract itself showed the land belonged to the Maharashtra govt. He submitted that it was Mahar Watan land and alleged that Tejwani had obtained the power of attorney from 272 cultivators before executing the disputed sale deed in favour of Amadea Enterprises LLP, in which Parth Pawar is a partner. Bombatkar also argued that co-accused Tejwani was released by Bombay high court on technical grounds.Taru, in judicial custody since Dec 7, 2025, has been accused of colluding with Tejwani and Amadea’s another partner, Digvijay Patil, a signatory to the sale deed, to waive off the stamp duty. The Bavdhan police registered an FIR on Nov 6, 2025, based on a complaint by joint district registrar and stamp duty collector Santosh Hingane. The case relates to a disputed sale deed registered on May 20, 2025, involving 17.51 hectares of land in Mundhwa. The prosecution stated that the government land was leased out to Botanical Survey of India for 50 years. The sale deed was executed in favour of Amadea Enterprises LLP. The document recorded a market value of approximately Rs300 crore.According to the prosecution, the joint district registrar had earlier informed Amadea Enterprises LLP that stamp duty of Rs5.89 crore was payable on the transaction. The prosecution alleged that the sale deed was registered without the payment of the applicable stamp duty and the state suffered a loss.
