The Bombay High Court has rejected Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal’s anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations that an advocate was threatened and assaulted for refusing to withdraw from ongoing legal proceedings. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that the material on record prima facie indicated Kahandal’s involvement in the alleged incident. The Court also stressed the urgent need for comprehensive legislation to protect advocates, highlighting the seriousness of allegations involving pressure on a lawyer to abandon his professional duties.
Background
The application arose from a case registered at Adgaon Police Station in Nashik City under Sections 109, 333, 351(3) and 352, read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on July 2, 2025, when advocate Rameshwar Vitthal Borade was working in his private office with a client. Three persons allegedly entered the office, damaged property, abused and assaulted him. One of them allegedly attacked Borade and his client with a sharp weapon and threatened the advocate.
The prosecution linked the incident to ongoing civil and criminal disputes involving the applicant’s father and the Date family, whom Borade represented. The allegation was that pressure had been exerted on the advocate to withdraw from those proceedings.
Kahandal’s counsel argued that his name did not appear in the FIR and that he had been implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s statement. The defence also relied on a Supreme Court judgment to challenge the reliance placed on such material.
Justice Jamdar examined a statement by Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal, which formed part of the charge-sheet filed against the applicant’s father and other accused. The statement referred to alleged communications from Kiran Kahandal asking the advocate to withdraw his appearance from the pending cases.
The Court observed that the applicant’s alleged role had emerged during further investigation, although it had already been disclosed in the charge-sheet against his father and others.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Arun Kumar C.K., the High Court reiterated that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation does not, by itself, justify anticipatory bail.
The Court noted,
“This is a very serious case where an Advocate, who is representing a party, was not only pressurized to withdraw his appearance but he has been assaulted.”
It 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.”
Finding that the material in the charge-sheet prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement in the alleged threats and assault, the Bombay High Court concluded that the case did not warrant anticipatory bail.
The Court accordingly dismissed Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal’s anticipatory bail application.
Case Details
Case Title: Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2558 of 2026
Judge: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
Decision Date: October 13, 2026
