A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Mhatre's challenge to the Bombay High Court's July 18 order staying the bail granted to him and its August 7 order imposing stringent bail conditions. The orders were passed in suo motu proceedings initiated after the Magistrate granted bail to him and his associates.

The bench emphasised that assault on medical personnel was serious and remarked that people who launch attacks on doctors do not deserve bail.

“This is a case where you should have been put in detention. Medical personnel are threatened like this, who will come to the aid of people at large? Absolutely not justified. This kind of people don't deserve it. They don't have any respect for medical fraternity. Look at your offences. You cannot imagine the trauma of a person when a mob attacks. You can go inside hospital and hit any random person? You were caught in the Act on video. The video is viral already”, the bench observed.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Mhatre argued that the High Court was wrong to take suo motu cognizance and stay the bail order. He questioned how a suo motu proceeding could have been initiated against an order granting bail.

The Court rejected this submission and indicated that it would uphold the first order passed by the High Court, which had stayed the bail granted to Mhatre.

The bench made it clear that it found no fault with the High Court taking suo motu cognisance of the Magistrate's bail order. “High Court was fully justified in taking suo motu cognizance and staying bail order. You are a public elected person…”, the bench remarked.

In the August 7 order, the High Court had provided a schedule for completing the investigation and commencing the trial. It directed the State Forensic Science Laboratory to provide its report on voice samples, CCTV footage and photographs to the investigating officer within 15 working days. The chargesheet had to be filed within 10 working days of receipt of the forensic reports, and the trial court was directed to frame the charges within 5 working days. The trial court was directed to endeavour to complete the trial within three months of framing of charges.

Rohatgi argued that a court could not impose such a condition for filing a chargesheet and framing charges. “How can there be such a condition?”, he said.

Rohatgi also objected to the manner in which the Bombay High Court had initially intervened in the matter. He pointed out that the High Court had held a special sitting on a Saturday and stayed a bail order that had already been passed, without giving Mhatre an opportunity to be heard.

“I can understand that the court will act. But you can't act like this on a Saturday. No notice was given to me. Bail was already granted to me, and it was stayed without hearing me”, he submitted.

The Court indicated that it wanted to wait for the State of Maharashtra to challenge the August 7 order granting bail to Mhatre.

The State, represented by Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, said that it was seeking to challenge the grant of bail to Mhatre. Dharmadhikari told the bench that the State would file an SLP against the August 7 order today itself. The Indian Medical Association, represented by AoR Prabhas Bajaj, also intervened in the proceedings to oppose the bail.

The Court said that the State's challenge will be considered along with Mhatre's present SLP and directed that the case be listed again on Monday. It ordered that if the State filed its SLP, it should be listed on the same day.

Background

The case stems from an incident on July 6 involving a nine-month pregnant woman who, according to the petition, was in acute labour and had allegedly been kept waiting for several hours. Mhatre claims that he reached the hospital after repeated calls from the woman's family and an altercation subsequently took place with hospital staff. An FIR was registered on July 7, naming Mhatre as Accused No. 1.

A Magistrate in Kalyan granted bail to Mhatre on July 14 taking into account his age, medical condition, lack of flight risk and the fact that the principal CCTV evidence had already been secured.

The Bombay High Court, on July 18, following the protests by doctors, took suo motu cognisance and stayed the bail order, directing him to surrender. After two weeks, the High Court granted him bail.

Mhatre's petition challenges July 18 order as well as the stringent conditions subsequently imposed by the High Court in the August 7 order, including directing him to reside in Calangute, Goa, report three times a week at Anjuna Police Station and remain outside Maharashtra until commencement of trial. It also challenges directions concerning a fast-track trial, forensic examination, filing of the chargesheet and appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 16040-16041/2026

Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay