Pune, 2nd January 2026: A court in Paud has rejected the bail application of suspended second-class sub-registrar Ravindra Taru, who is accused in the Mundhwa government land scam involving alleged evasion of stamp duty worth crores of rupees. The court held that the offence reflects serious misconduct by a public servant and cannot be dismissed as a clerical lapse.
Ravindra Balkrishna Taru (58), a resident of Bhor, has been arrested along with Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani and Amedia Company director Digvijay Amarsingh Patil. The case was registered at Bavdhan police station in connection with the sale of government land in Mundhwa, allegedly causing major financial loss to the state exchequer.
Taru, currently in judicial custody, had first sought interim bail, which was rejected. He later filed a regular bail application. The prosecution, represented by Senior Police Inspector Anil Vibhute and Special Public Prosecutor Nitin Adagle, opposed the plea, stating that the investigation into the financial transactions and bank accounts of prime accused Sheetal Tejwani is still underway.
The prosecution argued that granting bail at this stage could allow the accused to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. It also submitted that investigators need to examine whether similar illegal land transactions were carried out in other cases, leading to further losses to the government.
The court accepted these arguments and rejected the bail plea. It also dismissed Taru’s request for medical bail, noting that the medical certificates submitted were from January 2025 and no recent health reports were produced to justify the claim of liver psoriasis.
In its order, the court made strong observations, stating that a public servant is duty-bound to verify government interests, permissions, and applicable stamp duty before registering documents. Registering land documents on a stamp paper worth only ₹500 resulted in a loss of crores, which cannot be treated as a routine administrative mistake.
The court further noted that the scale of financial loss, illegal concessions in stamp duty, and the accused’s active role underline the seriousness of the offence. It clarified that there is no absolute rule that bail must be granted in every economic offence, especially when the allegations point to grave misuse of official authority.