A recent ruling by a Sangli court has denied the anticipatory bail application of filmmaker Palash Muchhal, who stands accused of engaging in casteist abuse and fraudulent activities. These allegations fall under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The decision, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge VD Nimbalkar on July 10, underscores the court’s stance on the gravity of the allegations.
The case against Muchhal originated from a complaint lodged by an individual named Vidnyan on May 4, 2026. According to the complaint, Vidnyan entered into a financial agreement with Muchhal in December 2024, wherein he provided ₹25 lakh for the production of a film. The agreement stipulated that this amount would be returned with an additional ₹15 lakh upon the project’s completion, a promise which reportedly went unfulfilled.
Vidnyan, who claims association with Muchhal through Indian cricketer Smriti Mandhana and her father, alleged that his repeated demands for repayment coincided with the timeframe of a planned marriage between Muchhal and Mandhana in November 2025. The complaint further details an incident on November 22, 2025, when Muchhal allegedly summoned Vidnyan to a toll booth on the Sangli–Ashta road, where two other individuals were present. During this encounter, Muchhal is accused of using casteist slurs against Vidnyan in a public setting.
The court evaluated the details presented in the First Information Report (FIR) and determined that they prima facie constitute an offence under the SC and ST Act. Judge Nimbalkar concluded, “The allegations in the FIR prima-facie make out alleged offence under SC and ST Act.”
In defense, Muchhal’s legal team argued that there was an unjustified delay of five months in filing the FIR. They also highlighted Vidnyan’s omission of the November incident from earlier complaints, including a January 3, 2026 filing in Mumbai. The defense suggested that the case arose from personal vendettas and was primarily a financial dispute. They referenced prior legal proceedings, including a Bombay High Court case where an interim order prevented Vidnyan from disseminating possibly defamatory content about Muchhal.
More Read
Meanwhile, the State’s legal representatives opposed the bail request, citing the SC/ST Act’s statutory prohibition on granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case is established. They argued that testimonies from independent witnesses supported the FIR’s allegations.
Judge Nimbalkar also took into account Vidnyan’s explanation for not immediately involving the authorities, citing a desire to avoid defaming Muchhal due to his impending marriage to Mandhana. Additionally, the judge noted Muchhal’s conduct post-granting of an interim anticipatory bail on May 25, 2026, particularly his failure to comply with police instructions for interrogation, preferring conditions such as video conferencing or police protection for his travel.
The court concluded, “Considering subsequent conduct of the applicant after grant of interim anticipatory bail, discretion could not be used to grant (anticipatory) bail.”
