Pandit Ranjya Tadavi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pandit Ranjya Tadavi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

In the event of arrest in Crime No.261/2025, the Applicant to be released on bail on a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (a) attendance at Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar on 18th, 20th, 23rd, 24th February 2026 and 2nd and 3rd March 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm., and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet; (b) no tampering with prosecution evidence and no influencing of witnesses; (c) submission of Aadhar and PAN cards and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two near relatives; (d) a single violation entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No.261/2025 (Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar) - involving offences under the Arms Act, Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act 1984, Maharashtra Police Act 1951, Criminal Law Amendment Act and BNS 2023 arising from the violent procession of 24.09.2025 - notwithstanding the prosecution's allegation that he instigated the unlawful assembly.

Court's answer

Perusal of the investigation papers does not disclose any specific role of the present Applicant in the said crime.

Ratio / Principle

The actual assault on policemen, damaging of vehicles, and ransacking of Mandakini or Sai Palace Hotel by pelting stones is not attributed to the Applicant.

Key takeaways

The Applicant's presence in the procession is not denied, but his role is restricted only to raising slogans and instigating other protesters to raise such slogans; he claims he was inside the Collector's office attending a meeting.ratio¶5
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.ratio¶5
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 the Court protected the Applicant by exercising discretionary powers under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Mehroz K. Pathan, J. - Anticipatory Bail Application No. 23 of 2026, pronounced 13.02.2026 - ALLOWED. The Applicant (named in the cause title as Pandit Ranjya Tadavi, though the operative bail clause describes the Applicant as Nilesh Vansingh Valvi - an internal inconsistency in the source text, flagged here) sought pre-arrest protection in Crime No.261/2025, Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar, for offences under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, Sections 37(1)(c) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 61(2), 223, 109, 324(3), 324(4), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR arose from a violent procession/silent Morcha of 24.09.2025 in Nandurbar protesting the knife-murder of Jayesh Raju Bhil (Valvi), in which crowds vandalized public property at the Collector Office, S.P. Office, Deputy R.T.O. Office and Navapur square and police used tear gas near Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel. Examining the investigation papers, the Court found that no specific role in the crime was disclosed against the Applicant: the actual assault on policemen, damaging of vehicles and ransacking of the hotels was not attributed to him; his presence in the procession was not denied and his role was restricted to raising slogans and instigating others to raise slogans; and the prosecution-relied statement of Akash Pawar merely placed him among several protesters and organizers. Holding that the Government Pleader's apprehension could be addressed by directing attendance at the police station, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023 on a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount, conditioned on police-station attendance on six specified dates till filing of the charge-sheet, non-tampering/non-influencing, submission of Aadhar/PAN and contact details, with a single violation permitting cancellation.

2026:BHC-AUG:6722

1 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2026

PANDIT RANJYA TADAVI VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

_______________________________________ Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kanade Angad Lala

GP for Respondents/State : Mr. A. B. Girase

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

Date of Reserving the Order : 5^th FEBRUARY 2026 Date of Pronouncing the Order : 13^th FEBRUARY 2026

O R D E R :

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.261/2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1)(c) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 223, 109, 324(3), 324(4), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

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 as well as Navapur sqaure. The Informant was informed that the mob is drawing closer within the precincts of Upnagar Police Station. At 15.45 Hrs the Police Officers on duty did notice large crowd having gathered near Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel. Immediately they proceeded to the spot and noticed one person was instigating the mob to burn the hotel and to jeopardize the life of police personnel. 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

3 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

paid and in turn committed the violence with the weapons.

. Accordingly the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing Crime No.261/2025 dated 25.09.2025 came to be registered with the Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar against persons including the present Applicant.

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

4 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

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.

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.

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

5 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

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.

. 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 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 :

6 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

ORDER

( i ) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Nilesh Vansingh Valvi in connection with Crime No.261/2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1)(c) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 223, 109, 324(3), 324(4), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 49 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 :

( a ) The Applicant shall attend the Upnagar 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.

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

( 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.

7 5(viii).ABA-23-2026.doc

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

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

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

Najeeb..