Vitthal Subhash Sawant vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Sanjiv Kadam, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Shivarkar and Mr. Prashant Raul, Advocate for Applicant in ABA/108/2026. Mr. Tejas Pawar, Advocate for Applicants in ABA/127/2026 and ABA/128/2026.

¶12

Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sandeep Phatak, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all matters. API-Mr. Vinayak Ahire, Waghole Police Station, Pune City, present.

¶13

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2026.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.06.12 11:08:11 +0530

¶16

These three applications arise out of the same crime and hence,

¶17

I am deciding these applications by this common order.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

7-ABA-127-2026 (CR).doc

¶20

Shubhada S Kadam

¶21

The applicants are apprehending in arrest in Crime No. 167 of 2025, registered with Wagholi Police Station, District Pune, under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the the Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶22

It is prosecution's case that the applicants falsely showed that a Gram Sabha of Manjari Khurd, Pune, was held on 28th February 2020, whereas the said Gram Sabha was not actually held. It is alleged that in the said bogus Gram Sabha, by resolution, the land of Shambhu Mahadev Trust was transferred to the trust of applicant Rohidas Damodar Undre. It is further alleged that applicant-Ramdas Shivram Undre was a clerk in the Gram Panchayat office, and applicant- Vitthal Subhash Sawant was a peon in the said Gram Panchayat.

¶23

It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for applicant - Rohidas Undre that no land was actually transferred to the trust of the applicant, and that only a resolution was passed. It is submitted that the applicant was not present in the said Gram Sabha, nor his he signatory on the said resolution. The applicant is on interim relief for around one year and he has cooperated with the investigation. The investigation is almost completed.

¶24

Learned counsel for applicants-Vitthal Subhash Sawant and Ramdas Undre submits that the applicants were employees of the Grampanchayat and are not concerned with the said Gram Sabha. They

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

7-ABA-127-2026 (CR).doc

¶27

Shubhada S Kadam

¶28

have been falsely implicated in this case. Interim protection is operating in their favour since one year, the investigation is almost completed, and requested to allow the applications.

¶29

It is contention of the learned APP, on the instructions of the investigating officer who is present in court, that the investigation is almost completed and custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required.

¶30

It is contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2/intervenor that the land was transferred to the trust of applicantRohidas Undre, and that he had given letter to the Gram Panchayat for transferring the said land. A bogus Gram Sabha was shown to have been held, which was not actually held. There are serious allegations against the applicants, their custodial interrogation is required, and requested to reject the applications.

¶31

I have heard all learned counsel, perused FIR and documents produced on record. Interim relief is operating in favour of the applicants since one year. The investigating officer does not want custodial interrogation of the applicants. Considering these facts, I pass the following order:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants - Ramdas Shivram @

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

7-ABA-127-2026 (CR).doc

¶36

Shubhada S Kadam

¶37

Shivaji Undre, Rohidas Damodar Undre and Vitthal Subhash Sawant, be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 167 of 2025, registered with Wagholi Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶38

(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

¶39

The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are accordingly disposed of.

¶40

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶41

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Vitthal Subhash Sawant v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Subhash Sawant v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Henna Bharat Shah vs Union of India

Shantanu Laxman Nimbalkar vs State of Maharashtra

Omkar Tukaram Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra

Hatodya @ Aniket Santosh Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra

Wasim Khan Bashir Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Vijay Panchal vs the State of Maharashtra