No Licence To Hit Doctors: Supreme Court Sends Corporator Back To Jail Over Hospital Assault

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of Kalyan-Dombivli corporator Ramesh Mhatre and three others accused of assaulting doctors at a Dombivli hospital on July 6, 2026. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the Bombay High Court overlooked Mhatre's criminal antecedents, his influence and the fear among doctors, and gave no reason for reversing its earlier stay. Stressing that doctors cannot work under threat of violence, the Court ordered all four to surrender by October 5, 2026, and asked the State to examine preventive detention laws.

Read full article

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation corporator Ramesh Mhatre and three others accused of assaulting doctors at a Dombivli hospital. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said any attempt to intimidate or assault medical professionals cannot be tolerated, least of all by persons holding elected office.

The Hospital Assault

On July 6, 2026, three doctors, including a woman doctor, were allegedly abused and assaulted at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital, Dombivli, after a dispute over shifting a pregnant woman in labour. An FIR was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Medicare Act.

A Magistrate granted bail in July. The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance and stayed the bail orders, but on August 7 restored bail with conditions, including residing outside Maharashtra until trial. The State challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Doctors Cannot Work Under Fear

The Court said a doctor cannot be expected to exercise sound and independent judgment while fearing violence, intimidation or coercion. Doctors' safety and dignity, it said, are not personal privileges but safeguards of the public interest.

It added that a genuine grievance is no licence for violence. Patients and families may still question treatment, complain of negligence and seek remedies under law, but not through threats. Elected representatives, the Court noted, carry a heightened responsibility to uphold the law.

High Court's U-Turn Questioned

The Supreme Court found the High Court's orders of July 18 and August 7 inconsistent. Bail was restored on the basis of time spent in custody, progress in investigation and forensic analysis, without showing what had changed since the earlier stay.

Antecedents And Influence

The Court noted 18 criminal cases against Mhatre, including offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. Although 16 ended in acquittal or discharge, it said these could not be ignored, particularly as key witnesses were yet to testify.

It also noted that Mhatre stayed in the prison ward of Thane Civil Hospital during custody and sought discharge immediately after the release memo was issued, raising concern about his influence. The woman doctor had resigned, while the other doctors stayed away from duty out of fear. A later Palghar incident involving members of the same political organisation further reinforced this insecurity, the Court said.

The three co-accused could not claim parity once Mhatre's bail fell.

Surrender By October 5

All four accused must surrender before the trial court by October 5, 2026, though they may renew bail pleas if circumstances materially change. The State must also independently examine whether preventive detention laws apply.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre | Crl.A. No. 004604/2026 | 2026