The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre in a case alleging assault on doctors and hospital staff at a municipal hospital in Dombivli, directing him to surrender within three days and stressing the need for a firm response to violence against medical professionals.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court order granting bail to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre in a case concerning the alleged assault of doctors and hospital employees at Shastrinagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the Maharashtra Government’s appeal and directed Mhatre to surrender within three days.
The Bench emphasised during the hearing that attacks on members of the medical profession required a strong response and that the institutional message against violence inside hospitals must be unambiguous.
The decision concerns cancellation of bail and does not amount to a finding that Mhatre is guilty. The allegations against him and the other accused remain subject to proof before the trial court.
Supreme Court concerned release could affect trial
The Maharashtra Government had challenged the Bombay High Court’s August 7 order releasing Mhatre on bail.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed concern that his continued release could adversely affect the trial, considering the nature of the allegations and the prosecution’s submissions.
The case involves an alleged assault on three doctors, including a woman doctor, and members of the hospital staff. Mhatre is named as Accused No. 1 in the First Information Report.
The accused have been booked for offences that include assault on public servants, voluntarily causing hurt, rioting, criminal intimidation and intentional insult. Provisions of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 have also been invoked.
The Bench questioned whether the facts warranted invocation of more serious penal provisions and also referred to Mhatre’s criminal antecedents while assessing the High Court’s exercise of bail jurisdiction.
Defence cites cooperation and commencement of trial
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mhatre, argued that cancellation of bail required a higher threshold than the initial decision whether to grant bail.
He submitted that Mhatre had already spent 19 days in custody, cooperated with the investigation and participated in the trial without obstructing the proceedings.
The Court was informed that the trial had commenced before a Magistrate, two prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the complainant, a woman doctor, was scheduled to depose on October 3.
Dave argued that the principal offence invoked against Mhatre carried a maximum sentence of five years and that the matter was triable by a Magistrate, a circumstance in which bail is ordinarily granted unless specific risks justify detention.
On the prosecution’s reference to 19 previous criminal cases, the defence maintained that they were politically motivated and submitted that Mhatre had been acquitted in 18 of them.
The Bench also referred to a separate alleged attack on medical personnel in Palghar involving Shiv Sena workers. Dave clarified that Mhatre had no connection with that incident. The Court nevertheless viewed repeated allegations of violence against healthcare professionals as a matter warranting serious concern.
Incident followed dispute over treatment of pregnant woman
The prosecution case arises from an incident on July 6, 2026, involving a woman who was nine months pregnant and allegedly in acute labour.
According to the case placed before the courts, the woman had allegedly been made to wait at the municipal hospital for several hours. Mhatre has claimed that he went to the hospital after receiving repeated calls from her family, following which an altercation occurred with the hospital staff.
An FIR was registered on July 7, with Mhatre named as the first accused.
A Magistrate at Kalyan granted him bail on July 14, taking into account his age, medical condition, the absence of flight risk and the fact that the principal CCTV evidence had already been secured.
Bombay High Court had imposed stringent bail conditions
Following protests by doctors, the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance on July 18 and stayed the Magistrate’s bail order, directing Mhatre to surrender.
Approximately two weeks later, the High Court granted bail subject to stringent restrictions. Mhatre was directed to reside in Calangute, Goa, report at Anjuna Police Station three times a week and remain outside Maharashtra until the commencement of trial.
The High Court also issued directions regarding an expedited trial, forensic examination, filing of the chargesheet and appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.
Mhatre approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s earlier intervention and the stringent conditions attached to the subsequent bail order. He later withdrew his challenge to those conditions.
The Supreme Court, however, proceeded with the State’s separate appeal against the grant of bail. It had earlier indicated concern about assaults on doctors inside hospitals and issued notice to Mhatre.
By allowing Maharashtra’s appeal, the Supreme Court has now set aside the High Court order that released him. It declined to disturb the directions intended to secure an expedited trial.
The trial will continue independently, and the prosecution must prove the charges in accordance with law. Mhatre retains the presumption of innocence unless convicted by the competent court.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4604 of 2026
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Hearing Date: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave for Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre
Status: Maharashtra’s appeal allowed; Bombay High Court bail order set aside; accused directed to surrender within three days