Prasad Arun Kharade Patil, Arun Venunath Kharade Patil, Charged Under Multiple BNS Sections in Mahalunge Property Case

Pune, Maharashtra: The ongoing Mahalunge property dispute has taken a significant legal turn, with Prasad Arun Kharade Patil and Arun Venunath Kharade Patil charged in connection with a case arising from the alleged incident at the project site on 27 July 2026.

According to the case material provided, multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 have been cited in connection with the allegations against the two individuals. The sections include provisions relating to voluntarily causing hurt, criminal trespass, property damage, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, disappearance of evidence, unlawful assembly and rioting.

Multiple BNS Sections Cited Against the Two Individuals

The case material lists the following sections in connection with Prasad Arun Kharade Patil and Arun Venunath Kharade Patil:

• Section 115(2) – Voluntarily causing hurt

• Section 329(3) – Criminal trespass

• Section 324(4) – Mischief involving specified property damage

• Section 352 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

• Section 351(2) – Criminal intimidation

• Section 238 – Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender

• Section 189(2) – Membership of an unlawful assembly

• Section 191(2) – Rioting

Together, these provisions cover a range of allegations concerning physical harm, unauthorized entry, damage to property, intimidation, evidence-related conduct and participation in an unlawful assembly or rioting.

Allegations Relating to the 27 July Mahalunge Incident

The case relates to an alleged incident at a Mahalunge project site in Pune on 27 July 2026. According to the complaint material, approximately 50–55 persons allegedly entered the premises along with JCB machines and cranes.

Prasad Arun Kharade Patil and Arun Venunath Kharade Patil have been charged in connection with the alleged incident. The complaint alleges that the group attempted to interfere with possession of the property and caused damage to infrastructure at the site.

Alleged Damage to CCTV Cameras and Property

The complaint alleges that approximately 32 CCTV cameras installed at the premises were damaged. It also alleges that a project signboard measuring approximately 20 feet by 20 feet was removed or damaged.

Further allegations concern damage to the permanent brick boundary wall and attached sheet-metal structure, allegedly involving heavy machinery.

These allegations form part of the circumstances in which BNS Section 324(4) has been cited in the case material.

Allegations Concerning Security Guards

The complaint also alleges that four security guards at the premises were restrained and confined and that they were allegedly assaulted.

These allegations correspond to the reported inclusion of BNS Section 115(2) concerning voluntarily causing hurt.

Criminal Trespass and Criminal Intimidation Allegations

The complaint further alleges that the group entered the project premises and attempted to interfere with possession.

Accordingly, the case material includes Section 329(3) concerning criminal trespass and Section 351(2) concerning criminal intimidation. The complaint also contains allegations concerning threats and intimidation during the incident.

Evidence-Related Allegations

The case material additionally lists Section 238 of the BNS, concerning causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender.

The alleged damage to CCTV equipment is part of the factual circumstances described in the complaint. Whether the specific conduct satisfies the legal requirements of Section 238 will be determined through the investigation and legal proceedings.

Unlawful Assembly and Rioting

The case material also includes Section 189(2) concerning membership of an unlawful assembly and Section 191(2) concerning rioting.

These provisions appear in the context of the allegation that a large group of individuals allegedly arrived together at the Mahalunge premises during the incident.

Civil Court Proceedings

The criminal allegations are also connected to a broader possession dispute that is before the civil court. In SPL.C.S. No. 942/2026, an order dated 27 July 2026 directed Kharade Patil Developers to maintain status quo over the suit property. The court recorded a prima facie observation that the defendant was forcibly attempting to obstruct the plaintiff's possession and stated that “he is trying to take law in his hands.” 

Legal Proceedings Continue

The naming of Prasad Arun Kharade Patil and Arun Venunath Kharade Patil in connection with the above BNS provisions relates to allegations arising from the Mahalunge incident. The matter remains subject to investigation and due process, and the citation or invocation of criminal sections does not by itself establish guilt.

The competent authorities and courts will determine the facts, applicability of the provisions and any resulting legal responsibility based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.