Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday granted regular bail to IAS officer and former Beed collector Avinash Pathak, who has been in custody since May in connection with an alleged Rs 310-crore land acquisition compensation scam in Beed district.
Pathak (55) was Beed collector-cum-arbitrator from June 28, 2024, to April 22, 2025. He was arrested on May 7 from his Latur residence in a case registered at Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the BNS. He also argued that BNS sections 338 and 316(5) were not attracted.
Justice Sushil M Ghodeswar observed that the probe against Pathak was complete, the trial was likely to take considerable time, and his continued detention until its conclusion “would require strong justification”. He has since been suspended. Senior advocate Rajendra Deshmukh, with advocate Vishal Chavan and advocate Devang Deshmukh, argued that no material showing pecuniary benefit to Pathak had been recovered and that no incriminating conversation involving him was on record. He contended that the co-accused’s weekend visits to Latur, where their children study, could not be treated as proof of meetings with Pathak.
Relying on Supreme Court’s Sept 29 ruling in ‘Sanjay Badaya vs State of Rajasthan’, the judge said pre-trial incarceration cannot become punitive, particularly when the trial is not imminent. The HC ordered that Pathak must furnish a Rs 1-lakh personal bond with two sureties; he must attend every trial hearing, surrender his passport, not leave India without permission, and not enter the Beed collector’s office or the land acquisition branch.
The court said the expert opinion supports the prosecution’s case on the signatures but does not establish when or how they were affixed. It was neither disregarded nor treated as conclusive. Pending sanction and the absconding of co-accused were not grounds to deny bail, it held. The judge also noted that Pathak’s suspension and the absence of any alleged tampering since his arrest weighed in his favour. The HC also directed that he must not influence witnesses or tamper with records. The court clarified that its observations are confined to the bail plea.