Observing that an assault on an advocate to force him to withdraw his appearance from legal proceedings is a very serious matter and highlights the need for dedicated protective legislation, the Bombay High Court single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar rejected the anticipatory bail application of Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal, an accused booked for allegedly orchestrating threats and an armed assault on an advocate inside his office.
The applicant had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No. 229 of 2025 registered at Adgaon Police Station, Nashik City. The offences registered against the accused are punishable under Sections 109, 333, 351(3), and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Background of the Case
According to the First Information Report (FIR) narrated in the proceedings, on July 2, 2025, between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., the complainant, Adv. Rameshwar Vitthal Borade, was in his private office near Central Bank, Madsangvi, on the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Highway Road, Nashik, speaking with his client Dinkar Tile. Suddenly, three unknown persons entered his office without permission.
The assailants lifted an office stool, damaged computer equipment and office items, and slapped the complainant. One assailant wearing a white shirt with a handkerchief tied around his neck attacked Tile on his left arm with a sharp weapon, threatened the advocate stating “I will finish you off” with an intention to kill, and struck the advocate on the head with the weapon. A fourth accomplice stationed outside on a moped allegedly urged the attackers to kill the complainant. One of the assailants who assaulted the complainant, identified as Shrut Navnath Kulaye, was caught on the spot.
The case record revealed that one civil proceeding and three criminal proceedings were pending between the applicant’s father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal, and Ganpat Date and others. The complainant advocate was representing the Date family in those proceedings. The prosecution’s case was that intense pressure had been mounted on the advocate to withdraw his appearance from the litigation, and when he refused to stop representing the family, he was threatened and assaulted.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chaitanya Pendse, submitted that the applicant had no role in the offence. He contended that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor present at the spot during the incident. He argued that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement (Aditya Kahandal), which cannot be relied upon even at the stage of anticipatory bail, citing the Supreme Court ruling in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157). The counsel further argued that while the applicant’s father might be involved, the applicant was not. He added that the applicant had attended the police station pursuant to a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS and that his mobile phone was seized.
Opposing the plea, Ms. S. M. Yadav, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, along with Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore, counsel appearing for the complainant (Respondent No. 2), pointed to the statement of witness Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal recorded in the charge-sheet. The APP also submitted, on instructions, that the applicant’s mobile phone had not been seized.
The witness statement of Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal disclosed that in the second week of June 2025, the applicant, Kiran Kahandal, had initially asked him to convey a message to Adv. Borade to amicably settle the property dispute. When the advocate responded that parties should speak directly, the applicant met the witness two days later and directed him: “tell Rameshwar Borade to withdraw his appearance from all our cases as soon as possible.” Adv. Borade declined, stating he was merely performing his duties as a lawyer. The assault took place shortly thereafter on July 2, 2025.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
Examining the charge-sheet material, the court noted that the statement of Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal prima facie disclosed the involvement of the applicant in the serious crime of threatening and assaulting the advocate representing the opposing party. The bench observed that the applicant’s role was evident in the charge-sheet filed against his father and other accused, and his involvement further surfaced during ongoing investigation.
Addressing the standards governing pre-arrest bail, the bench referred to the Supreme Court ruling in X v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022) 17 SCC 391, which held:
“There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. 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. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
Evaluating the gravity of the conduct, Justice Jamdar observed:
“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.”
The High Court further observed:
“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.”
Holding that no case was made out for the grant of pre-arrest relief, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Case Title: Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2558 of 2026
Bench: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
Date: 13 October 2026
