Pune Court Watches Facebook Videos, Finds No Obstruction of Government Work, Grants Anticipatory Bail to Two Men

Pune, 15th October 2026: A sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to two men accused of obstructing government work at the Paud tehsil office, observing that videos uploaded on Facebook did not establish that they had prevented government employees 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. After examining the footage, the court concluded that it did not establish obstruction of government work and granted them anticipatory bail.

The applicants are Pratik Jitendra Waghmare (29), a resident of Chakan, and Vishal alias Saki Sanjay Gaikwad (39), a resident of Wakad. They approached the court through their 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 two men allegedly snatched documents from employees, threatened them and recorded videos inside the government office after failing to receive information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated period.

The defence argued that the applicants had sought information about alleged illegal excavation by builders under the RTI Act. Their lawyers maintained that the men had not obstructed government employees from performing their duties and were merely seeking answers about the information provided to them.

The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail applications, arguing that the accused could interfere with the investigation if granted relief.

However, after examining the videos, the court observed that the footage showed the applicants asking public servants to provide the requested information and questioning why the information supplied to them carried an earlier date. The court held that the videos did not establish that they had obstructed government work and granted them anticipatory bail.