Can villagers angry about a crumbling road be presumed to form an unlawful assembly? The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court says no, quashing the FIR Over Chandrapur Road Protest against a 26-year-old man and warning against blurring the line between protest and prosecution.
Nagpur: A large gathering to agitate against the condition of a road cannot be presumed to be an unlawful assembly, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held while quashing an FIR, charge-sheet and pending criminal case against Nishkarsh Kiran Nimgade, a 26-year-old resident of Nandgaon in Chandrapur district, who was booked after local residents protested against the poor condition of a road following an accident [Nishkarsh Kiran Nimgade v. State of Maharashtra].
Justice M.W. Chandwani reserved the judgment on September 22 and pronounced it on October 29, 2026, allowing the criminal application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Protest is not prosecution
Relying on Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, the Court said prosecutions must not be launched to stifle agitations that are part of the democratic process, so long as people do not take the law into their own hands or turn violent. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and while reasonable restrictions are permissible, the right cannot be diluted by vague charges:
“The lines between the constitutional right to protest and the unleashing of penal prosecutions cannot be allowed to be blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.”
What happened on January 21
On January 21, 2026, a pickup vehicle travelling from Gondpipri towards Nandgaon hit an electricity pole and overturned near Mauza Nandgaon, injuring its passengers. As news spread, people gathered at the spot, angry about the quality of the road, and demanded action against officials of the Public Works Department (PWD) and the contractor who built it. According to the prosecution, they tried to block the road by tying a rope across it before the police dispersed them.
On a complaint by a police constable, Mul Police Station registered FIR No. 44 of 2026 on January 22 under Sections 126(2), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. The charge-sheet filed on March 22 added further sections, and the case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mul.
Nothing on record to show obstruction
Additional Public Prosecutor H.D. Futane, for the State, argued that the crowd had restrained commuters by tying the rope and that the applicant was present. After going through the entire charge-sheet, the Court found nothing to support wrongful restraint: “There is no whisper in the entire charge-sheet as to who was obstructed,” and not a single passerby’s statement had been recorded.
On the unlawful assembly charge, the Court held:
“Merely because large number of persons gathered to agitate against the condition of the road and insisting for action against the erring officials of PWD department and the contractor, it cannot be presumed that the people gathered on the spot formed an unlawful assembly.”
The Court also noted that the applicant’s name did not appear in the first part of the FIR describing the alleged blocking of the road, and surfaced only after the police had removed the crowd.
The Maharashtra Police Act charge was found unsustainable because no prohibitory order under Section 37 had been shown to exist or to have been promulgated, and the Court held that the 1932 Act was not attracted either. It concluded that “the launch of criminal prosecution against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court” and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and Regular Criminal Case No. 432 of 2026 qua the applicant.
Why the judgment matters
Civic protests over roads, water or power are routine across rural India, and they are often followed by FIRs for unlawful assembly and obstruction against whoever happens to be identified at the spot. The judgment insists that such charges need evidence of their ingredients: someone actually obstructed, a common object that is illegal, or a prohibitory order that was in force and made known to the public.
The ruling also reaffirms that the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS can be used to end a prosecution even after a charge-sheet, where the material collected discloses no offence. By anchoring its reasoning in Article 19(1)(b), the Court has treated peaceful agitation for accountability as a protected democratic activity rather than a law-and-order problem.
Case Title: Nishkarsh Kiran Nimgade v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application (APL) No. 1699 of 2026; 2026:BHC-NAG:14958]
Bench: Justice M.W. Chandwani, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Purushottam Patil for the applicant; APP H.D. Futane for the State
