A Pune sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to two men accused of obstructing government work at the Paud tehsil office after examining Facebook videos that the court found did not establish that public servants had been prevented from performing their duties.
Sessions Judge H. M. Bhosale watched the videos in an open courtroom in the presence of the defence lawyers, the public prosecutor and the investigating officer. During the hearing, the investigating officer told the court that the videos were the only evidence against the applicants, according to the report by Punekar News.
The applicants, Pratik Jitendra Waghmare, 29, of Chakan, and Vishal alias Saki Sanjay Gaikwad, 39, of Wakad, had approached the court through lawyers Abhay Shirsat and Abdul Qayyum Sayyed. The case relates to an incident at the Paud tehsil office in August 2026.
According to the complaint, the men allegedly snatched documents from employees, threatened them and recorded videos inside the government office after they did not receive information sought under the Right to Information Act within the stipulated period. The allegations were made in connection with their request for information about alleged illegal excavation by builders.
The defence disputed the allegation that the applicants had obstructed government employees. Their lawyers told the court that the men were seeking answers about the information supplied to them and questioning why the documents carried an earlier date. The defence maintained that their conduct did not amount to preventing officials from carrying out their duties.
The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail applications, arguing that the applicants could interfere with the investigation if granted relief. After examining the footage, however, the court observed that the videos showed the applicants asking public servants to provide the requested information and questioning the date on the documents.
The court concluded that the videos did not establish obstruction of government work and granted anticipatory bail to both men. The order places the evidentiary value of the recorded interaction at the centre of the immediate dispute, while the underlying questions about the requested information and the alleged excavation remain connected to the ongoing case.
