News Snacks

Pune Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Two Accused in RTI Case

Judge finds no obstruction of public duty in video evidence presented during hearing

Accused alleged delays in RTI responses; court directs cooperation with investigation

By Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 16, 2026

A Pune sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to two men accused in an RTI-related case, ruling that the video evidence presented did not show obstruction of government work. The court emphasized that the footage instead highlighted delays by officials in providing information under the RTI Act.

Case Background

• Accused:
  • Pratik Jitendra Waghmare (29), student from Khed
  • Vishal alias Saki Sanjay Gaikwad (39), businessman from Wakad
• Incident Dates: August 12 and 21, 2026
• Location: Paud Tehsildar’s office, Pune
• Allegations:
  • Snatching documents from officials
  • Entering Nayab Tehsildar’s cabin
  • Recording videos and threatening staff
  • Circulating videos on social media

Court’s Observations

• Judge HM Bhosale examined the videos in open court.
• Found no act of obstruction against public servants.
• Footage showed accused questioning officials about delays in RTI responses.
• Court concluded custodial interrogation was not necessary.

Bail Conditions

• Each accused must execute a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety.
• Must cooperate with investigation.
• Strictly prohibited from threatening or influencing witnesses.
• Any breach could lead to cancellation of bail.

Implications

• For RTI Activists: Reinforces judicial protection when seeking accountability from officials.
• For Officials: Highlights importance of timely RTI responses to avoid confrontation.
• For Legal System: Demonstrates reliance on video evidence and judicial scrutiny in bail decisions.

FAQs

Q1: Why were the accused granted bail?

Because the court found the video evidence did not prove obstruction of government work.

Q2: What were they accused of?

Snatching documents, threatening officials, and circulating videos recorded inside the Paud tehsildar’s office.

Q3: What did the videos show?

The accused questioning officials about delays in providing RTI information, not obstructing their duties.

Q4: What conditions were imposed?

They must furnish bonds, cooperate with the investigation, and avoid influencing witnesses.

Q5: What does this mean for RTI cases?

It underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing citizen activism with protection of public servants, ensuring accountability without misuse of criminal charges.