In what could spell troubles for Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar's son and Rajya Sabha MP Parth Pawar, the Bombay High Court has sought to know from the State Police as to why he has not been named as an accused in the Mundhwa land deal case.

Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar noted that a company named Ameida Enterprises LLP had purchased the 40-acre government-owned land in Pune's Mundhwa area for an amount much less to the land parcel's actual value.

The judge noted that the police while investigating the case has come across the fact that the company which purchased the said land had two directors - Parth Pawar and one Digvijay Patil. However, the police have only named Patil as an accused and not Pawar.

"It is submitted that although said Digvijay Patil has been made Accused, said Parth Pawar has not been made an Accused as he is very highly influential and the son of the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra," the judge recorded in the order passed on September 7.

The judge therefore, sought to know from the State Police as to why Pawar wasn't named in the case and his colleague was named.

The judge, has thus, ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to file his personal affidavit explaining the same.

"In view of the above, the Director General of Police as also the Investigating Officer to file replies," the judge ordered while adjourning the matter for further hearing till September 28.

This comes while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Pune Tehsildar - Suryakant Yewale, who is named as an accused in the case for allegedly misusing his office in facilitating the transaction. He has claimed that he has no role in the entire case and was falsely implicated.

The bench has agreed to hear the matter again on September 28.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Harshad Nimbalkar along with Advocates Satyam Nimbalkar and Abhishek Arote appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor SV Gavand represented the State.

Advocates Shubhankar Kulkarni and Sandeep Dinkar Paigade represented other Respondents.

Advocate Atharva Bhingardeve represented the Intervenor.

Case Title: Suryakant Gulabrao Yewale vs State (Anticipatory Bail Application 8 of 2026)

Click Here To Read/Download Order