Pune court denies anticipatory bail to two absconding accused for sharing derogatory posts about Amruta Fadnavis. Judge cites lack of cooperation and intent to outrage modesty of a woman.
A Pune court has rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two individuals who were accused of sharing an objectionable post on social media about Amruta Fadnavis, the wife of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.
The case was registered by the Pune Cyber Police in April based on a complaint filed by advocate Basavraj Yadvad.
According to the police, seven people were named in the FIR—Nikhil Sankpal, Datta Chaudhari, Baliram Pandit, Ashish Wankhede, Shailesh Varma, Bhumish Save, and Abhijit Phadnis.
All of them were issued notices to cooperate with the investigation. Among them, only Nikhil Sankpal responded to the police notice. Four others—Chaudhari, Pandit, Wankhede, and Varma—were later arrested by the police, while Save and Phadnis did not appear and remained absconding.
Police informed the court that Sankpal was the original uploader of the controversial post, which received more than 16,000 views, 895 likes, and was retweeted 187 times.
The police claim that the remaining six accused retweeted this post, thereby participating in spreading the content.
All four arrested individuals—Chaudhari, Pandit, Wankhede, and Varma—had applied for regular bail before Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Gandhi.
The court granted them bail. On the other hand, the two accused who were absconding, Bhumish Save and Abhijit Phadnis, had approached the court with anticipatory bail pleas, which were rejected.
Public Prosecutor Rajesh Kavediya opposed the bail request and argued that the accused had shared content that was derogatory to a woman and harmed her reputation. He told the court:
“Character is an ornament for any woman, and since the post was derogatory, bail should not be granted.”
Amruta Fadnavis was represented by advocate S.K. Jain, who also opposed the bail applications.
While passing the order, the court observed that the accused had either posted or shared content that was defamatory and offensive towards a woman.
The court said:
“The accused did not verify the truthfulness of the content before retweeting. Despite being served notices by the police, they failed to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
The prosecution further pointed out that Bhumish Save, after retweeting the post, went a step further and shared another post on social media, in which he offered legal assistance to those facing similar cases.
The court noted this behavior and commented on the accused’s intentions, saying:
“This tweet was posted after registration of the FIR. This shows the accused intentionally posted such derogative matters on social media against the minister and his wife. Such conduct of the accused is not justifiable.”
Click Here to Read More Reports on Parliament security
