A court in Maharashtra’s Sangli has declined to grant anticipatory bail to filmmaker Palash Muchhal, holding that the allegations against him disclose a prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, while also taking note of his lack of cooperation during the investigation despite receiving interim protection.
Additional Sessions Judge V.D. Nimbalkar passed the order on July 10, refusing Muchhal’s plea for pre-arrest relief.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Vidnyan, on the basis of which an FIR was registered on May 4, 2026, invoking provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the complaint, Vidnyan allegedly invested ₹25 lakh in December 2024 to finance a film project after being assured that he would receive ₹40 lakh once the project was completed. He claimed that despite repeated requests, the promised amount was never repaid.
The complainant further stated that he knew Muchhal through Indian cricketer Smriti Mandhana and her father. He alleged that while seeking repayment, including around the period when Muchhal was expected to marry Mandhana in November 2025, he was called to a toll plaza on the Sangli–Ashta road on November 22, 2025.
At that location, where two other individuals were allegedly present, Vidnyan claimed Muchhal abused him by using caste-based slurs in public view. The court observed that these allegations, if accepted at this stage, were sufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Rejecting the defence’s contention that the complaint suffered from an unexplained delay of nearly five months, the court accepted the complainant’s explanation that he initially refrained from approaching the authorities because he did not wish to tarnish Muchhal’s public image while his marriage was expected to take place.
Muchhal’s legal team argued that the alleged incident had not been mentioned in earlier complaints, including one lodged in Mumbai on January 3, 2026. It was also submitted that the dispute was essentially financial in nature and motivated by personal animosity. The defence referred to earlier proceedings before the Bombay High Court, where an interim order had restrained the complainant from publishing material allegedly defamatory to Muchhal.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that anticipatory bail is barred under the SC/ST Act when the complaint reveals a prima facie offence. It also informed the court that statements of independent witnesses supported the allegations made in the FIR.
Apart from the nature of the accusations, the court also weighed Muchhal’s conduct after he was granted interim anticipatory bail on May 25, 2026. It noted that instead of appearing before the investigating officer, he sought conditions such as being questioned through video conferencing or being provided police protection for travel between Kolhapur and Sangli.
Taking these circumstances into account, the court concluded that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail could not be exercised in the applicant’s favour and dismissed the plea.
