Pandit Ranjya Tadavi vs the State of Maharashtra

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.583/2025 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 190, 189(2), 191(2), 132, 121(2), 324(3)(5)(6), 118(1), 326(f), 125(a)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

2 5(vii).ABA-20-2026.doc

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the Informant namely Vantu Bhikarya Gavit, Police Sub-Inspector Police Station has lodged the complaint with the Sub-Urban Police Station, Nandurbar alleging therein that, one Suryakant Marathe committed murder by knife of Jayesh Raju Bhil (Valvi) in front of Vijay Collection Readymade Cloth Shop in Nandurbar City. The offence came to be registered against him. In the backdrop of murderous assault on Jay Valvi, the Procession/silent Morcha was organized by people of Adivasi community on 24.09.2025 at 13.30 Hrs in Nandurbar City. The protesters became violent, pelted stones and damaged the private and public vehicles. Accordingly, the Police on bandobast/ law and order were required to be on toes. The agitators vandalized the public property at the Collector Office, S.P. Office, the Deputy R.T.O. Office. To quell the unruly crowd the tear gas/shell was used and the crowd was required to refrain from committing disturbance but no heed was paid and in turn committed the violence with the weapons.

¶17

. Accordingly the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing Crime No.583/2025 dated 25.09.2025 came to be registered with the Nandurbar City Police Station against persons including the present Applicant.

¶18

3 5(vii).ABA-20-2026.doc

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was present inside the office of the District Collector attending a meeting with the Collector and was not present at the spot where the incident of arson and rioting took place. The Applicant was not part of the crowd outside, was not raising any slogans, and did not provoke the mob. The presence of the Applicant was lawful and limited to the meeting conducted by the District Collector. The allegation that the Applicant instigated or participated in the demonstration is baseless. The entire exercise by the prosecution appears to be an attempt to implicate as many accused persons from the community as possible, even though the silent procession itself had been permitted by the Collector. It is further submitted that there is no specific role attributed to the Applicant in the said crime. The Applicant has been deliberately roped in through the statement recorded by the prosecution of Aakash, thereby falsely implicating the present Applicant. The witness, Akash Pawar, is a police constable who, acting under the directions of the police authorities, has wrongly implicated the Applicant. Although the Applicant was part of the Morcha, he was actually inside the Collector’s office attending a meeting with the Collector regarding the representation to be made, and was not outside raising slogans or provoking the mob.

¶20

4 5(vii).ABA-20-2026.doc

¶21

As against this, the learned Government Pleader strongly opposes the present application on the ground that the Applicant is the instigator and abettor of the alleged conspiracy of the unlawful assembly which committed the offences of rioting, murderous assault, causing grievous hurt, ransacking, and damaging public property. The statements of the witnesses Gopal Choudhari, Khushal Mali, and Akash Pawar clearly show the role of the present Applicant in the said crime. The Applicant is alleged to be involved in serious offences including attempt to murder and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, both of which are punishable with life imprisonment. Hence, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶22

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned Government Pleader. The perusal of the investigation papers indicates that the Applicant is alleged to have been present in the mob and shouting slogans in protest against the killing of Jay Valvi, a member of the community, by a person from another community. The statement of Akash Pawar, relied upon by the prosecution, merely asserts that the Applicant was one among several protesters and organizers present in the procession taken out to protest the murder of Jay Valvi.

¶23

5 5(vii).ABA-20-2026.doc

¶24

. The perusal of the investigation papers does not disclose any specific role of the present Applicant in the said crime. The Applicant’s presence in the procession itself is not denied; however, the Applicant submits that he was inside the Collector’s office attending a meeting with the Collector. The subsequent incident of causing damage to Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel is not attributed to the Applicant by any of the witnesses, namely Gopal Choudhari, Khushal Mali, and Akash Pawar. The Applicant’s role is restricted only to raising slogans and instigating other protesters to raise such slogans. The actual assault on policemen, damaging of vehicles, or ransacking of Mandakini or Sai Palace Hotel by pelting stones is not attributed to the Applicant. The apprehension of the learned Government Pleader can be taken care of by directing the Applicant to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. Hence, I am inclined to protect the Applicant by exercising the discretionary powers under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Hence, the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

( i ) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Pandit Ranjya Tadavi in connection with Crime No.583/2025 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of

¶27

6 5(vii).ABA-20-2026.doc

¶28

Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 190, 189(2), 191(2), 132, 121(2), 324(3) (5)(6), 118(1), 326(f), 125(a)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :

¶29

( a ) The Applicant shall attend the Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar on 18^th , 20^th , 23^rd , 24^th of February, 2026 and 2^nd and 3^rd of March, 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. and thereafter as when called by the Investigating Officer, till the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶30

( b ) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence the witnesses.

¶31

( c ) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.

¶32

( d ) A single violation of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

¶33

( ii ) The application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of.

¶34

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

¶35

Najeeb..

Pandit Ranjya Tadavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandit Ranjya Tadavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Alias Swapnil Sharadchandra Mhaske vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakil Fattumiya Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vikas Bhausaheb Vairagar vs the State of Maharashtra

Girish Ashokrao Dixit vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sandip Bhanudas Kotkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ayub Rajan Patel vs the State of Maharashtra