Court emphasizes seriousness of assault on advocate representing opposing party, calls for urgent legislation to protect legal professionals
In a significant judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with allegations of threatening and assaulting an advocate representing an opposing party in ongoing civil and criminal proceedings. The case, registered as Crime No. 229 of 2025 at Adgaon Police Station in Nashik, involves serious charges under Sections 109, 333, 351(3), and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution's case centers on an incident dated July 2, 2025, when Advocate Rameshwar Vitthal Borade, who represents the Date family in multiple legal disputes against the applicant's father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal, was allegedly assaulted in his office. According to the complaint, three unidentified men forcibly entered the advocate's office, damaged property, verbally abused him, and physically assaulted him. One assailant reportedly wielded a sharp weapon and threatened the advocate with fatal harm. The attack was allegedly orchestrated to coerce the advocate into withdrawing his legal representation of the Date family, a demand he firmly refused.
The applicant's counsel argued that Kiran Kahandal was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated solely based on the statement of a co-accused. He further contended that the applicant had cooperated with the police by responding to a notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and had no role in the offence.
However, the court examined a critical piece of evidence - the statement of Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal, a witness whose testimony was included in the charge-sheet. This statement indicated that Kiran Kahandal had conveyed messages to the advocate, pressuring him to withdraw from representing the Date family. When the advocate declined, the threats escalated to physical violence. The court found this prima facie evidence sufficient to establish the applicant's involvement beyond mere implication through co-accused statements.
Justice Jamdar underscored the gravity of the offence, highlighting that assaulting an advocate in connection with their professional duties is a serious matter. The court noted the urgent need for comprehensive legislation to provide robust protection to advocates, who serve as officers of the court and are essential to the administration of justice.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in X v. Arun Kumar C.K., the judgment clarified a common misconception regarding anticipatory bail: the absence of a necessity for custodial interrogation does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the primary consideration must be the prima facie case against the accused and the nature of the offence.
Given the serious allegations and the evidence suggesting the applicant's active role in the assault and intimidation, the Bombay High Court held that no case was made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. The application was accordingly dismissed, marking a firm stance against acts that threaten legal professionals and undermine the judicial process.
This judgment sends a strong message reinforcing the protection of advocates and maintaining the integrity of the legal system, while also pointing towards legislative reforms to safeguard legal practitioners from similar threats in the future.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail - Threat and assault on advocate representing opposite party in pending civil and criminal proceedings - Prima facie involvement of applicant disclosed from witness statement forming part of charge-sheet - Mere absence of need for custodial interrogation is not by itself a ground to grant anticipatory bail - Anticipatory bail rightly refused in serious case involving pressure on advocate to withdraw appearance.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 109, 333, 351(3), 352, 3(5)
Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998815
