E-Paper
Mundhwa land scam: Court rejects second bail plea of suspended sub-registrar
Additional Sessions Judge DS Deshmukh rejected Taru’s plea on Tuesday, noting that the alleged transaction caused a loss of nearly ₹21 crore to the state exchequer
A Pune sessions court has rejected the second bail application of suspended sub-registrar Ravindra Balkrishna Taru, a key accused in the high-profile Mundhwa land scam, observing that he had played an active role in facilitating the registration of a disputed sale deed on a nominal ₹500 stamp paper.
Additional Sessions Judge DS Deshmukh rejected Taru’s plea on Tuesday, noting that the alleged transaction caused a loss of nearly ₹21 crore to the state exchequer. The copy of the order was made available on Thursday. The court also held that Taru had failed to establish any change in circumstances since his earlier bail application was rejected.
The case relates to the alleged fraudulent sale of 17.51 hectares of government land at Mundhwa, Survey No. 88, currently leased to the Botanical Survey of India for 50 years. The land was registered in favour of Amadea Enterprises LLP through a sale deed executed by co-accused Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani, who acted as power of attorney holder for 272 watandars.
According to the prosecution, the property had a registered market value of ₹294.65 crore and the transaction involved consideration of ₹300 crore. Despite revenue records showing the Maharashtra government as the owner, the document was registered on a ₹500 stamp paper instead of attracting statutory stamp duty.
The prosecution said the transaction resulted in a revenue loss of more than ₹20.99 crore. Taru was arrested on December 7, 2025, and booked by the Bavdhan police under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Maharashtra Stamps Act.
In rejecting the bail plea, the court observed, “It appears from the record that the applicant/accused has played an active role and facilitated co-accused to register the document on nominal stamp paper of Rs.500/-.” It further held that his earlier bail plea had been rejected after consideration of the charge-sheet and that he had not brought any changed circumstances on record.
Taru’s defence argued that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, making further custody unnecessary. Counsel also relied on high court precedents to contend that a registering officer is not required to verify title or ownership before registering a document. Bail was also sought on the ground of parity, as co-accused Tejwani had been granted bail by the Bombay High Court.
District government pleader Pradeep Bombatkar opposed the plea, pointing out that the 7/12 extract clearly recorded the Maharashtra government as the landowner. The prosecution alleged that Taru actively facilitated the evasion of statutory stamp duty.
The court rejected the parity argument, holding that Taru’s role was distinct as he had allegedly facilitated registration of the document on the nominal stamp paper.
“Therefore, the ground of parity is not applicable to the applicant,” the court said.
