Urgent Need for Comprehensive Legislation for Protection of Advocates: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has sent a stern warning against the intimidation of legal professionals, ruling that the assault and coercion of an advocate to withdraw from a case constitutes a grave threat to the administration of justice. Refusing pre-arrest bail to an accused, the Bench emphasized that advocates, as Officers of the Court, cannot be subjected to physical violence or professional sabotage by litigants.

A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar heard the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Applicant was seeking protection from arrest in connection with CR No.229 of 2025 registered at Adgaon Police Station, Nashik City, for alleged offences under Sections 109, 333, 351(3), and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Law on Protection for Advocates 

The Applicant contended that his name did not appear in the FIR and that his implication was based solely on a co-accused's statement. He relied on the precedent in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 935) to argue that such statements are inadmissible. However, the prosecution presented a statement from a witness, Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal, which detailed how the Applicant had sent messages to the victim Advocate, demanding he withdraw his appearance from cases involving the Applicant's father.

The Bombay High Court observed that "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."

Addressing the criteria for pre-arrest bail, the Bombay High Court cited X v. Arun Kumar C.K., noting that the nature of the offence and the prima facie case take precedence over whether the police require the accused for questioning. The Bench further noted that “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.”

Background

The dispute originated from a series of civil and criminal proceedings pending between the Applicant’s father and a local family in Nashik. The First Informant, a 39-year-old advocate, was representing the opposing family. On July 2, 2025, three individuals allegedly entered the advocate's private office, damaged property, and assaulted him and his client with a sharp weapon, threatening to "finish him off."

Investigation revealed that prior to the attack, the Applicant had sent mediators to the advocate, asking him to "amicably settle" or withdraw from the cases. When the advocate maintained that he was merely performing his professional duty, the assault followed. The Bombay High Court found that the witness statements in the charge-sheet clearly established the Applicant's role in the conspiracy and execution of the threat, leading to the dismissal of the bail plea.

Case Details:
Case No.: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2558 OF 2026
Case Title: Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chaitanya Pendse a/w Sachin Kadam & Khushi Rawlani, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP for the State; Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w Shamshad Ali Hashmi & Aditya S. Deore i/b Suchita J. Pawar for Respondent No.2.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6545