Bombay HC Flags Imperative Need For Enacting Advocates Protection Law
Bombay High Court Highlights Urgent Need for Advocates Protection Law
It warms the innermost cockles of my heart to learn that none other than the Bombay High Court, which is one of the oldest and most prestigious high courts in not only India but all over the world with a maximum of five high court benches, demonstrates its magnanimity even though it is not the biggest high court in India, which we all know is the Allahabad High Court with just one high court bench, even though it is the biggest high court in the whole world. Even after the partition of Uttar Pradesh on November 9, 2000, into UP and Uttarakhand, it has once again stolen the limelight by holding, most explicitly, elegantly, eruditely, and eloquently, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical, and latest judgement titled Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal v. State of Maharashtra and Another in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2558 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on October 13, 2026, in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction, has underscored that there is an urgent need to enact comprehensive legislation to protect advocates.
It merits noting that it was held so while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of a Nasik resident who was booked over the alleged assault and threatening of an advocate who was representing a rival family in civil and criminal proceedings. We need to also note that while calling the matter a serious one, the Bombay High Court took into account that an advocate was allegedly pressured to withdraw his appearance and then assaulted for continuing to represent a party.
Why Advocates Need Legal Protection In India
Plainly speaking, one must not forget that lawyers often champion the cause of the underprivileged and marginalised in society. So it merits just no reiteration that their stellar role is undoubtedly vital in ensuring that the rights of the most vulnerable are protected, but if they are themselves not safe, then where will our society go?
Historically, lawyers have played a significant role in India’s struggle for independence, and even thereafter we witnessed how the first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru; the first President, Dr Rajendra Prasad; and also the first Union Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, among others, were all earlier lawyers, which further necessitates making their safety and well-being paramount!
Murder Of Kalpi Bar Association President Highlights Lawyers’ Safety Concerns
I express my most deepest condolences on the most brutal murder of the president of the Kalpi Bar Association, the late Mr Gayaddin Ahirwar, in Jalaun in Bundelkhand, and most shockingly, we have no Advocate Protection Act in UP!
Why Uttar Pradesh Needs An Advocate Protection Act
By the way, it must be definitely mentioned here that for the doctors we see that there is a law for the protection and safety of doctors. We have the Uttar Pradesh Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013, [U.P. ACT NO. 16 OF 2013] that came into force on September 26, 2013, but for lawyers even now after nearly ten years, we don’t see any such act forthcoming, which shows how the legal rights of lawyers have been held hostage by successive impervious state governments, and it is high time that the ruling dispensation in Uttar Pradesh takes into account the serious threat that always looms large on the lives of lawyers who are “officers of the court” yet are denied even what must be definitely given due to the state’s apathy, which certainly cannot be ever justified under any circumstances!
Also Read: Foreign Court Judgement Enforcement in India: Supreme Court RAKIA Judgement & Section 44A CPC
Protection Available To Doctors Under Uttar Pradesh Law
In the law for doctors’ safety in UP, as mentioned above, we see that there is a provision of three years imprisonment and so also a fine of up to Rs 50,000 for assaulting a doctor or vandalising a hospital. This crime has also been made non-bailable.
Why Similar Legal Protection Must Be Extended To Advocates
Why such a law cannot be made for lawyers, also who are more vulnerable than even doctors, from being attacked by not just the criminals but also the police!
Need for an Advocates Protection Act: Time for State Governments to Act
It must be mentioned here that the Delhi High Court in May 2023 had directed the Delhi government to consider the draft Advocates Protection Bill 2023 and hold a consultation with stakeholders on it. It cannot be kept in abeyance any longer, which all the state governments must realise now and wake up from its deep slumber!
The “alarming rise” in the incidents of violence on lawyers cannot be glossed over by any government, and it is “high time now” for a decision to be taken for the enactment of an “Advocates Protection Act” to guarantee protection to the fraternity and help overcome the fear that a lawyer has to encounter in every second in his/her life! No denying it!
Bombay High Court Examines Assault on Advocate in Anticipatory Bail Case
Background and Legal Provisions of the Case
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of Bombay High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that,
“By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No. 229 of 2025 registered with Adgaon Police Station, Nashik City, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 333, 351(3) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
Prosecution Case: Allegations of Assault on Advocate
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while putting forth the prosecution case, laying bare that,
“The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No. 3 of the Anticipatory Bail Application, which reads as under:
“3. The prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. in a nutshell is as under:- It is alleged by the prosecution that on 2nd July, 2025, between 5.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., the complainant, Adv. Rameshwar Vitthal Borade, aged about 39 years, resident of Shilapur, Post Odha, Taluka & District Nashik, was talking to his client Dinkar Tile in the complainant’s private office near Central Bank, Madsangvi, on the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Highway Road, Nashik, when suddenly three unknown persons, one wearing a black shirt, another wearing a white shirt with a handkerchief tied around his neck and the third one wearing a check shirt, entered the complainant’s office without saying anything and without the complainant’s permission for an unknown purpose.
It is further alleged that the said unknown persons lifted the stool in the office, damaged the complainant’s computer and other office items, abused the complainant and beat him with a slap.
The accused, who was wearing the white shirt and had a handkerchief tied around his neck, hit the person Dinkar Tile on his left arm with a sharp weapon in his possession and abused the complainant and said, “I will finish you off” with the intention of killing the complainant, and hit the complainant on the head with the said sharp weapon.
It is further alleged that one of the accused, who was sitting on the moped outside on the road, encouraged all three accused to kill the complainant.”
Pending Civil and Criminal Proceedings Between the Parties
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 8, observing that,
“Perusal of the record shows that one civil proceeding and three criminal proceedings are pending between the applicant’s father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal, and Mr Ganpat Date and others. The Respondent No. 2, i.e., the First Informant, who is an Advocate, represents the Date family in the said proceedings.”
Applicant’s Defence: Denial of Involvement in the Offence
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 10 that,
“Mr Pendse, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant’s father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal, is involved in the offence; however, the applicant is not involved in the offence.”
Witness Statement in the Charge Sheet: Alleged Threats to Advocate
More strikingly, the Bench notes in para 11 that,
“However, it is required to be noted that the charge sheet which has been filed against the applicant’s father, Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal, and the other accused contains the statement of one Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal. The relevant portion of the said statement reads as under:
The English translation of the said statement is as under:
“I, Shri Bhalchandra Kahandal, age 44 years, occupation – farming, R/at – Gat No. 247, Mhasoba Nagar, At-Shilapur, post – Odha, taluka – District – Nashik, mobile no. 7972505120, kahandalbhalchandra64@gmail.com, passed 10th Standard, on being asked personally to state as under.
I have been residing at the aforesaid place along with my family since my birth. I am residing there with my wife and children. I have agricultural land in Shilapur Village, and it is our ancestral occupation. I am a reputed person in the village, and I have amicably settled many land-related disputes or minor disputes in our village.
I have known a resident of our village by the name of Madhavrao, alias Madhavsheth Kahandal, and his family since my childhood. I also know his son, Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal. One day in the second week of June, 2025, in the evening, while we were chitchatting at the village ‘Katta’, Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal, the son of Madhavrao, alias Madhavsheth Kahandal, told me, “Convey a message to Advocate Rameshwar B. Orade, who is representing the opposite party in the cases filed against us, that we will amicably settle the land-related disputes by holding a discussion with Advocate Rameshwar B. Orade.”
Two to four days thereafter, when I met Advocate Rameshwar Borade, I conveyed the message given by Kiran Kahandal to him. Thereupon, Advocate Rameshwar Borade told me: “Ask them to talk to the parties directly and to amicably settle the dispute.” Accordingly, I conveyed the said message to Kiran Kahandal.
Two days thereafter, Kiran met me and told me to inform Rameshwar Borade to withdraw his appearance from all our cases as soon as possible. Accordingly, I conveyed the said message to Rameshwar Borade on the very day itself.
At that time, Rameshwar Borade told me to inform him that he was doing his work only in the capacity as an advocate. At that time, I told both of them to settle the dispute amicably and do not stretch it unnecessarily.”
Statement Regarding the Assault on the Advocate
On the date 02.07.2025, he has been assaulted in his office situated at Mandsangavi. I am aware that on the basis of the complaint given by Rameshwar Borade in respect thereof, an offence has been registered with Adgaon Police Station. Moreover, Rameshwar Borade had caught hold of one of the boy who had assaulted him. I learnt that his name is Shrut Navnath Kulaye, R/at – Jail Road, Nashik.
I have read my statement and the same is typewritten as stated by me and the same is true.
Also Read: Ancestral Property Delhi: Daughter’s Rights, Partition, Sale & Legal Remedies.
Applicant’s Role Disclosed During Investigation
Most strikingly, the Bench points out in para 12 that,
“Thus, it is clear that, in fact, even in the Charge-sheet which has been filed against the Applicant’s father and other Accused, the Applicant’s role was disclosed and, therefore, he should have been made an Accused earlier. However, during further investigation, the role of the Applicant was seen.”
Bombay High Court’s Serious Observation on Assault Against an Advocate
On a very serious note, the Bench holds in para 13 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.”
Supreme Court’s Principles on Grant of Anticipatory Bail
While citing recent and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 14 that, “The Supreme Court in the case of X v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022) 17 SCC 391, has held as under:
“12. …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.”
Prima Facie Involvement of the Applicant in the Alleged Crime
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 15 that,
“In the present case, admittedly, the First Informant was representing the Date family in the civil and criminal proceedings which are pending against the Applicant’s father. The statement of said Bhalchandra Bhaskar Kahandal, which is part of the Chargesheet, prima facie shows the involvement of the present Applicant in serious crime of threat and assault on the First Informant who is appearing as Advocate for said Date family.”
Advocate Assaulted for Refusing to Withdraw Appearance
Quite significantly and most rationally, the Bench then hastens to add in para 16 noting that,
“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.”
Bombay High Court Highlights Urgent Need for an Advocates Protection Law
Most significantly and so also most commendably, the Bench encapsulates in para 17 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely 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.”
Anticipatory Bail Application Dismissed by the Bombay High Court
Court Refuses to Grant Anticipatory Bail
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 18 that,
“Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.”
Final Order of the Bombay High Court
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 19 that,
“The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.”
Why India Needs a Comprehensive Advocates Protection Act
In a nutshell, it is high time and what the Bombay High Court has advocated and flagged for the urgent need for the enactment of the Advocate Protection Law needs to be done not in just one or two States or few States but in all the States all over India on a national level so that no lawyers in any State seethe in anger over their not coming under the protective umbrella of this new legislation.
It must be said that “The Advocates Protection Act” must be implemented at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer now!
Those who dare to attack lawyers must certainly be given exemplary punishment and under no circumstances should be allowed to go away scot free or let off lightly!
If lawyers are themselves not safe in our country then who else will be safe?
Of course, one still fervently hope that Centre will take the necessary action in this regard because there has been a lot of dilly-dallying on it for a very long time and so now no more excuses anymore on any pretext whatsoever!
Now it must be definitely enacted at the earliest and most strictly implemented as has been underscored by the Bombay High Court in this leading case also.
Most of all, those who attack advocates irrespective of whether they are men in uniform or anyone else must be sent behind bars for minimum seven years and five years for threatening advocates and 10 years for attacking advocates and life term for causing grievous hurt to advocates and mandatory death term for killing advocates and huge penalty!
It must be indubitably pursued to its logical conclusion so that Advocates don’t feel insecure and unsafe anywhere in our nation who are the biggest pillars of justice constituting the Bar without whom even the Bench cannot function smoothly!
Let us fervently hope so! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
 s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
 Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
