In a significant legal development, a sessions court in Pune on Tuesday firmly rejected a plea by suspended tehsildar Suryakant Yewale, who sought three weeks of interim protection from arrest. This protection was sought to enable him to file an appeal before the Bombay High Court in the ongoing Mundhwa land deal case.
Court Cites Supreme Court Ruling in Rejection
The order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge PY Ladekar followed the court's earlier decision on December 22, where Yewale's application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Judge Ladekar explicitly cited a ruling by the Supreme Court, which establishes that a sessions court lacks the authority to grant interim protection once it has delivered a final verdict on an anticipatory bail petition.
The court's reasoning was clear and rooted in legal precedent. It referred to the SC ruling and stated, "This court cannot extend interim protection, in an application for anticipatory bail, till approaching higher court when finally this court has rejected the prayer for pre-arrest protection." The order further emphasized a settled legal principle, noting, "It is a settled principle of law that any interim order gets merged in the final order."
Arguments from Defence and Prosecution
During the hearing, Yewale's legal representative, advocate Harshad Nimbalkar, put forth a contention in favor of granting the protection. He argued that since interim protection had been granted to his client earlier, failing to extend this period would render "the purpose of anticipatory bail will become infructuous." The defence also maintained that granting such protection fell within the discretionary powers of the court.
However, the district government pleader, Pramod Bombatkar, presented a strong counter-argument. He pointed out that Yewale's application was filed only after the court had already rejected his anticipatory bail plea on Monday. Bombatkar supported his stance by referencing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, submitting that the court is barred from granting any extension of time or protection following the rejection of an anticipatory bail application.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
This ruling underscores the strict procedural boundaries within the Indian legal system concerning pre-arrest bail. By dismissing the plea for interim protection, the Pune sessions court has effectively cleared the path for investigative agencies to proceed with arrest procedures, should they deem it necessary, unless the Bombay High Court intervenes upon appeal.
The case continues to draw significant attention, highlighting the legal complexities surrounding high-stakes land deal investigations. Yewale's legal team is now expected to move swiftly to approach the Bombay High Court to challenge the sessions court's order and seek relief, as the protective legal cover he sought has been formally denied.
