The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal, who was seeking pre-arrest protection in connection with a violent incident involving an advocate in Nashik City. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar presided over the matter, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, which included the physical assault of a lawyer and the destruction of his office property, allegedly because he refused to withdraw his professional services from a contentious legal dispute. The ruling marks a significant judicial recognition of the perils faced by legal professionals, with the Court explicitly calling for robust legislative action to ensure their safety while acting as officers of the court.

The incident occurred on July 2, 2025, when Advocate Rameshwar Vitthal Borade was conducting professional work at his private office near Central Bank on the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Highway Road in Nashik. According to the prosecution's case, three unidentified individuals entered the premises without permission. The assailants allegedly proceeded to damage the advocate’s computer and other office equipment, verbally abused the legal practitioner, and physically attacked him and a client, Dinkar Tile, who was present at the time. The assailants reportedly wielded sharp weapons, with the specific intent of harming the advocate and intimidating him into abandoning his legal representation in ongoing civil and criminal proceedings involving the Kahandal family and the Date family.

Following the incident, the Adgaon Police Station in Nashik City registered a case against the accused under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically Sections 109, 333, 351(3), and 352, read with Section 3(5). The legal battle subsequently reached the High Court, as the applicant sought protection from arrest, asserting that he was not involved in the actual commission of the offence.

Coercion in Legal Proceedings

During the hearings, the defense argued that the applicant's name was absent from the initial First Information Report and that his inclusion was based primarily on the statement of a co-accused, which the defense contended should not hold weight during the pre-arrest bail stage. Counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant was not physically present at the scene and that he had cooperated with the investigation by presenting himself at the local police station upon receiving a notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution, supported by counsel for the complainant, directed the Court’s attention to evidence found within the charge sheet, specifically the witness statement of Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal. The statement revealed a clear pattern of intimidation: the applicant had allegedly approached the witness on multiple occasions to relay threats to Advocate Borade, demanding that the lawyer withdraw his appearance in cases involving the applicant’s father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal.

The Court noted the gravity of these circumstances, observing that the applicant’s role was clearly linked to the targeted harassment of a legal professional. "This is a very serious case where an Advocate, who is representing the party and who is the Officer of the Court, has been pressurised to withdraw his appearance from those proceedings and that, when he refused to do so, he was assaulted," Justice Jamdar noted in the order. The judicial record highlighted that the dispute originated from multiple civil and criminal proceedings, and the attempt to force the advocate to abandon his professional duties was interpreted as a direct affront to the integrity of the judicial process.

Judicial Stand on Advocate Safety

In its final decision, the Court scrutinized the legal standards for granting anticipatory bail. While acknowledging that custodial interrogation is a key factor, the Court reiterated that it is not the sole parameter. Referencing the principle established in X v. Arun Kumar C.K. , the Court maintained that the absence of a necessity for custodial interrogation does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail if a prima facie case exists. Justice Jamdar observed, "The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused."

The Court found that the material on record, particularly the witness testimony detailing the chain of events and the repeated demands to withdraw legal representation, established a strong prima facie case against the applicant. The Court emphasized that legal practitioners, as officers of the court, perform essential duties that must be protected from external interference and coercion.

Reflecting on the societal and systemic implications of such attacks, the judgment highlighted an urgent requirement for state intervention. "In fact, this case shows that there is urgent need of enacting comprehensive legislation to provide adequate protection to Advocates, who are the Officers of the Court ," the Court remarked. By categorizing the incident not merely as a criminal act of assault but as an attempt to undermine the justice system itself, the High Court signaled that such actions would not be treated lightly.

The dismissal of the anticipatory bail application leaves the applicant without legal immunity from arrest in the ongoing investigation. The matter remains under the jurisdiction of the Adgaon Police, who are expected to continue the probe into the conspiracy and the specific roles of the accused persons involved in the attack. The decision underscores the judiciary's firm stance that any attempt to intimidate lawyers or interfere with their professional functions poses a fundamental threat to the rule of law, necessitating rigorous investigation and adherence to legal processes. The case will now proceed through the ordinary course of criminal justice, with the prosecution’s evidence serving as the foundation for subsequent trial proceedings.