Headnotes
A firm, Almeida Enterprises LLP, acquired roughly 40 acres of government land in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price alleged to be significantly below market value. Investigation records showed the firm had two directors — one of whom is the son of Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister — but the State Police named only the other director as an accused, omitting the Deputy CM's son despite his shown involvement as a co-director. The Bombay High Court, hearing a challenge to this selective approach, directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to file a personal affidavit explaining why the Deputy CM's son had not been named as an accused, and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Where investigation records themselves show a person's formal role (here, as a company director) in an alleged offence, an unexplained decision to omit that person from the list of accused can draw direct judicial scrutiny — including a demand for a personal affidavit from the State's top police officer.
- Courts can single out a DGP personally, rather than accepting a routine departmental response, when a selective-prosecution concern touches a politically sensitive figure.
- An order of this kind does not itself allege wrongdoing by the person not named — it tests whether the investigating agency's own stated basis for its charging decisions holds up to scrutiny.
Full Judgment Text
The Bombay High Court has directed Maharashtra's Director General of Police to personally explain why the son of the state's Deputy Chief Minister was not named as an accused in a case involving the acquisition of government land in Pune at a fraction of its market value.
FACTS:
A firm, Almeida Enterprises LLP, acquired approximately 40 acres of government land in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price alleged to be significantly below market value. Investigation records placed before the Court showed the firm had two directors, one of whom is the son of the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The State Police charged only the other director in connection with the alleged land deal, leaving the Deputy CM's son unnamed despite the records showing his role as a co-director. It was submitted before the Court that he had not been made an accused because of his political proximity.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
The Court found the selective charging decision required explanation, given that the investigation's own records disclosed the Deputy CM's son as a co-director of the firm implicated in the land deal. Rather than accepting a routine explanation from the investigating team, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra — the state's senior-most police officer — to personally file an affidavit setting out the reasons for the disparity in how the two directors were treated.
HOLDING:
The Court ordered the DGP to file a personal affidavit explaining why the Deputy CM's son had not been named as an accused, and adjourned the matter for further hearing to September 28, 2026.
Source: LiveLaw, "Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra DGP Why Deputy CM's Son Not Named In Govt Land Deal Case Despite Alleged Involvement," September 9, 2026.
FACTS:
A firm, Almeida Enterprises LLP, acquired approximately 40 acres of government land in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price alleged to be significantly below market value. Investigation records placed before the Court showed the firm had two directors, one of whom is the son of the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The State Police charged only the other director in connection with the alleged land deal, leaving the Deputy CM's son unnamed despite the records showing his role as a co-director. It was submitted before the Court that he had not been made an accused because of his political proximity.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
The Court found the selective charging decision required explanation, given that the investigation's own records disclosed the Deputy CM's son as a co-director of the firm implicated in the land deal. Rather than accepting a routine explanation from the investigating team, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra — the state's senior-most police officer — to personally file an affidavit setting out the reasons for the disparity in how the two directors were treated.
HOLDING:
The Court ordered the DGP to file a personal affidavit explaining why the Deputy CM's son had not been named as an accused, and adjourned the matter for further hearing to September 28, 2026.
Source: LiveLaw, "Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra DGP Why Deputy CM's Son Not Named In Govt Land Deal Case Despite Alleged Involvement," September 9, 2026.
