Pune: Amadea Enterprises LLP partner Digvijay Patil has withdrawn his anticipatory bail application from a city court in the case linked to the Mundhwa govt land parcel deal registered by the Khadak police and being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing. Patil cited the reason of need to amend his pleadings and grounds for the anticipatory bail relief in the wake of the chargesheet filed by the police during the pendency of his application. The case relates to two illegal orders passed by suspended Pune city tehsildar Suryakant Yewale, granting ownership rights of govt lands in Mundhwa and Bopodi in favour of private parties, registered with the Khadak police. In one of these orders, Yewale had written to the Botanical Survey of India, which possesses the land on lease till 2038, to vacate the same in favour of Amadea Enterprises LLP in which former deputy chief minister late Ajit Pawar’s son, Parth, is another partner. Parth has not been named in the FIR. Patil has been named in the case with Sheetal Tejwani, the power of attorney holder for the 272 Watandars (original holders of the Mahar Watan land before the Mahar Watan system was abolished), Yewale and six others linked to the Bopodi govt land parcel related order. The Enforcement Offences Wing (EOW) filed a 1,886-page chargesheet against Tejwani on Jan 27. Patil’s lawyer S S Kulkarni filed a pursis (information to court) before the court of additional sessions judge BV Wagh on Feb 18 stating that, during the pendency of the present (anticipatory bail) application, the Investigating agency filed the chargesheet against other co-accused in the present matter. “In view of the filing of the chargesheet, it became necessary for the applicant (Digvija Patil) to reconsider, and amend the pleadings and grounds in light of the material contained in the chargesheet and accompanying documents,” he stated. “Therefore, the applicant seeks to withdraw the said bail application with liberty to file a fresh application, if necessary, after examining the chargesheet and taking appropriate grounds,” the application stated. The court allowed the plea on these grounds by stating that the application was disposed of as withdrawn.
