Sangli court denies anticipatory bail to filmmaker Palash Muchhal in SC/ST case

A Sangli court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of filmmaker Palash Muchhal, who is facing allegations of casteist abuse and cheating in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Palash Muchhal v. State of Maharashtra & Anr].

Additional Sessions Judge VD Nimbalkar passed the order on July 10, rejecting Muchhal's plea.

The FIR against Muchhal was lodged by on a complaint by one Vidnyan on May 4, 2026. It alleges that in December 2024, the complainant paid ₹25 lakh to Muchhal to finance a film, on the understanding that he would receive ₹40 lakh after completion, but the money was never returned. 

Vidnyan claimed to be acquainted with Muchhal through India cricketer Smriti Mandhana and her father. In his complaint, Vidnyan alleged that he repeatedly demanded repayment, including around the time of a proposed marriage between Muchhal and Mandhana in November 2025.

According to the FIR, on November 22, 2025, Muchhal allegedly called Vidnyan to the toll naka on the Sangli–Ashta road at about 6.30 PM where two other persons were present. 

Vidnyan claims that Muchhal abused him there by referring to his caste in a public place and within public view. The court held that the allegations prima-facie made out an offence under the SC and ST Act against Muchhal.

“The allegations in the FIR prima-facie make out alleged offence under SC and ST Act,” the court concluded.

Muchhal’s counsel had argued that there was an unexplained delay of five months in filing the FIR and that the Vidnyan had omitted the November 22, 2025 incident in earlier complaints, including a January 3, 2026, complaint in Mumbai. 

The defence also pointed to prior litigation, including a suit in the Bombay High Court in which an interim order dated February 11, 2026, restrained Vidnyan from publishing allegedly defamatory material about Muchhal. It was contended that the case was a result of malafide and personal grudge, and that at most it reflected a monetary dispute.

The State opposed the plea citing the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act where a prima facie offence is disclosed. The State's counsel argued that statements of independent witnesses also corroborates the allegations in the FIR.

Judge Nimbalkar observed that Vidnyan had explained his initial reluctance to approach the police because of Muchhal’s then-pending nuptials with Smriti Mandhana, and that he did not want to defame him. It rejected Muchhal's argument that there was unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

It also noted that after interim anticipatory bail was granted on May 25, 2026, the applicant did not appear before the investigating officer, instead seeking to dictate conditions such as video-conference examination or police protection for travel from Kolhapur to Sangli.

“Considering subsequent conduct of the applicant after grant of interim anticipatory bail, discretion could not be used to grant (anticipatory) bail,” the court said. 

[Read order]