The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday questioned Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre over the assault of medical doctors on the Shastrinagar Hospital in Kalyan, observing that assaults on medical professionals inside hospitals couldn’t be handled frivolously.
The Court docket indicated that it was inclined to uphold the Bombay Excessive Court docket’s July 18 order staying the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre booked for assaulting three medical doctors on the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Company run hospital.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih was listening to Mhatre’s problem to the Bombay Excessive Court docket’s July 18 order staying the bail granted to him and its August 7 order imposing stringent bail situations. The orders had been handed in suo motu proceedings initiated after the Justice of the Peace granted bail to him and his associates.
The bench emphasised that assault on medical personnel was critical and remarked that individuals who launch assaults on medical doctors do not deserve bail.
“This can be a case the place it is best to have been put in detention. Medical personnel are threatened like this, who will come to the help of individuals at massive? Completely not justified. This type of individuals do not deserve it. They haven’t any respect for medical fraternity. Take a look at your offences. You can’t think about the trauma of an individual when a mob assaults. You’ll be able to go inside hospital and hit any random individual? You had been caught within the Act on video. The video is viral already”, the bench noticed.
Throughout the listening to at this time, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Mhatre argued that the Excessive Court docket was flawed to take suo motu cognizance and keep the bail order. He questioned how a suo motu continuing may have been initiated in opposition to an order granting bail.
The Court docket rejected this submission and indicated that it might uphold the primary order handed by the Excessive Court docket, which had stayed the bail granted to Mhatre.
The bench made it clear that it discovered no fault with the Excessive Court docket taking suo motu cognisance of the Justice of the Peace’s bail order. “Excessive Court docket was totally justified in taking suo motu cognizance and staying bail order. You’re a public elected individual…”, the bench remarked.
Within the August 7 order, the Excessive Court docket had supplied a schedule for finishing the investigation and commencing the trial. It directed the State Forensic Science Laboratory to supply its report on voice samples, CCTV footage and pictures to the investigating officer inside 15 working days. The chargesheet needed to be filed inside 10 working days of receipt of the forensic studies, and the trial court docket was directed to border the expenses inside 5 working days. The trial court docket was directed to endeavour to full the trial inside three months of framing of expenses.
Rohatgi argued {that a} court docket couldn’t impose such a situation for submitting a chargesheet and framing expenses. “How can there be such a situation?”, he mentioned.
Rohatgi additionally objected to the way in which the Bombay Excessive Court docket had initially intervened within the matter. He pointed out that the Excessive Court docket had held a particular sitting on a Saturday and stayed a bail order that had already been handed, with out giving Mhatre a possibility to be heard.
“I can perceive that the court docket will act. However you may’t act like this on a Saturday. No discover was given to me. Bail was already granted to me, and it was stayed with out listening to me”, he submitted.
The Court docket indicated that it needed to attend for the State of Maharashtra to problem the August 7 order granting bail to Mhatre.
The State, represented by Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, mentioned that it was looking for to problem the grant of bail to Mhatre. Dharmadhikari instructed the bench that the State would file an SLP in opposition to the August 7 order at this time itself. The Indian Medical Affiliation, represented by AoR Prabhas Bajaj, additionally intervened within the proceedings to oppose the bail.
The Court docket mentioned that the State’s problem will be thought-about together with Mhatre’s current SLP and directed that the case be listed once more on Monday. It ordered that if the State filed its SLP, it ought to be listed on the identical day.
Background
The case stems from an incident on July 6 involving a nine-month pregnant girl who, in response to the petition, was in acute labour and had allegedly been stored ready for a number of hours. Mhatre claims that he reached the hospital after repeated calls from the girl’s household and an altercation subsequently befell with hospital employees. An FIR was registered on July 7, naming Mhatre as Accused No. 1.
A Justice of the Peace in Kalyan granted bail to Mhatre on July 14 bearing in mind his age, medical situation, lack of flight threat and the truth that the principal CCTV proof had already been secured.
The Bombay Excessive Court docket, on July 18, following the protests by medical doctors, took suo motu cognisance and stayed the bail order, directing him to give up. After two weeks, the Excessive Court docket granted him bail.
Mhatre’s petition challenges July 18 order in addition to the stringent situations subsequently imposed by the Excessive Court docket within the August 7 order, together with directing him to reside in Calangute, Goa, report 3 times every week at Anjuna Police Station and stay outdoors Maharashtra till graduation of trial. It additionally challenges instructions regarding a fast-track trial, forensic examination, submitting of the chargesheet and appointment of a Particular Public Prosecutor.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 16040-16041/2026
Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre v. Excessive Court docket of Judicature at Bombay
