The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a municipal corporator and three other accused in a case concerning the alleged assault and intimidation of doctors at a municipal hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra. The Court held that the bail orders failed to adequately consider the accused’s criminal antecedents, political influence, the risk of witness intimidation and the incident’s impact on the medical fraternity.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in its order dated September 28, 2026, allowed the Maharashtra Government’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision restoring bail to the four accused.
The Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court before October 5, 2026. It also directed the State Government to independently examine whether the applicable preventive detention laws were attracted, while requiring adequate protection for material witnesses throughout the trial.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
Alleged Assault In Hospital Labour Ward
The case arose from an incident allegedly occurring at approximately 8 p.m. on July 6, 2026, in the labour ward of Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital, Dombivli.
According to the prosecution, Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, an elected corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 24, led three other accused—Ramesh Laxman Pawar, Pramod alias Prakash Uddhav Nikam and Akshay Sharad Karande—in assaulting and verbally abusing three on-duty doctors, including a woman doctor.
The incident allegedly followed a dispute over shifting a pregnant patient in labour. The prosecution further alleged that Mhatre threatened the informant, Dr. Vaibhav Namdev Salunkhe, creating fear that delayed registration of the complaint.
An FIR was registered on July 7, 2026, at Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Thane City, under Sections 121(1), 132, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010.
Magistrate Granted Bail; High Court Initially Stayed Release
Following their arrest, the accused were remanded to police custody until July 13, 2026, and subsequently to judicial custody.
The Magistrate granted bail to Mhatre on July 14, 2026. The remaining three accused were granted bail on July 17, principally on the ground of parity with him.
The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident on July 18, 2026. It stayed the bail orders and directed Mhatre to surrender. The other accused had not yet completed the formalities necessary for release.
During subsequent proceedings, the High Court transferred the investigation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone III, Kalyan, and directed that the informant’s statement be recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The proceedings also brought the consequences for hospital staff into focus. The order records that the woman doctor resigned following the trauma and insecurity caused by the incident, while other victim doctors refrained from attending their duties because of fear. On July 31, the High Court directed the municipal corporation not to accept the resignations tendered by the victim doctors.
Bail Restored With Conditions Requiring Residence Outside Maharashtra
On August 7, 2026, the High Court permitted the four accused to be released on bail subject to conditions.
These included residing outside Maharashtra until commencement of the trial, reporting three times a week at Anjuna Police Station in North Goa, surrendering their passports and refraining from contacting witnesses.
The High Court also issued directions for a fast-track trial, assignment of the case to a Special Judge, appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, submission of forensic reports and filing of the chargesheet.
The accused separately approached the Supreme Court against the bail conditions, but withdrew those petitions on September 7, 2026. Maharashtra’s challenge to the grant of bail proceeded before the apex court.
State Cited Political Influence And Threats To Witnesses
The State argued that the High Court had restored bail without identifying any material change capable of overcoming the concerns that prompted its earlier stay.
It submitted that approximately 27 days of custody could not, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the allegations, the accused’s antecedents, the stage of investigation and the apprehension of interference with witnesses.
Counsel for the informant emphasised the alleged threats against him. The Indian Medical Association highlighted the fear prevailing among doctors and the effect of that insecurity on their ability to provide medical care.
The accused disputed the prosecution’s account. Their counsel argued that the allegations were false, distorted and exaggerated, and had been influenced by extensive media coverage and public outrage.
The defence also relied on the allegedly simple nature of the injuries, submitted that the invoked offences carried imprisonment of up to five years, and pointed to the prospect of a lengthy trial involving 64 proposed prosecution witnesses.
Regarding Mhatre’s antecedents, the defence submitted that 16 earlier proceedings had ended in acquittal or discharge and that only one case remained pending.
High Court Failed To Explain Its Change In Approach
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s initial order staying bail and its subsequent order restoring bail reflected fundamentally conflicting approaches to relevant considerations.
Once the High Court had found sufficient prima facie grounds to stay the Magistrate’s orders and require surrender, a departure from that position required cogent and discernible reasons.
However, the later order did not explain what intervening circumstance had displaced the earlier assessment. The passage of time in custody, progress in investigation and anticipated completion of forensic analysis did not, without further examination, establish that the original concerns had ceased to matter.
The Supreme Court accordingly held that the High Court’s reasoning fell short of the assessment required before restoring bail.
Criminal Antecedents And Hospitalisation Required Consideration
The bench observed that criminal antecedents are relevant to bail where they bear upon the likelihood of repeated offending, interference with justice or intimidation of witnesses.
It noted that 18 criminal cases were stated to have been registered against Mhatre, including cases involving offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
While expressly acknowledging his acquittal or discharge in 16 proceedings, the Court held that the nature of the allegations and surrounding circumstances still required consideration. It expressed concern that his influence might have affected earlier proceedings, particularly given the need for witnesses to testify against him in the present case.
The bench also examined Mhatre’s continued admission to the prison ward of the District Civil Hospital, Thane, during police custody and thereafter during judicial custody. It noted that he sought discharge immediately after issuance of the release memo following the original bail order.
The Court said this sequence raised serious concern about the use of influence associated with his position to circumvent the effective operation of custody.
As the remaining accused had principally obtained bail on parity with Mhatre, the Court held that they could not sustain that relief merely on parity once the underlying grant of bail was found unsustainable.
Doctors’ Safety Is Essential To Effective Healthcare
The Court emphasised that doctors’ safety and dignity serve the wider public interest because medical decisions require concentration, composure and independent professional judgment.
A climate of violence or intimidation within a hospital can affect patients as well as the individual medical professional subjected to it.
The bench recognised the right of patients and families to question treatment, complain of negligence, seek investigation and pursue legal remedies. However, dissatisfaction with treatment cannot justify threats, violence or coercion.
The Court also clarified that its observations did not excuse negligence or dereliction of duty by medical professionals. Such complaints must be addressed in accordance with law and the applicable guidelines.
Elected Office Does Not Confer Authority To Intimidate
The bench expressed particular concern over allegations involving an elected representative.
It observed that an electoral mandate creates a responsibility to serve the public and uphold lawful institutions. It does not permit an officeholder to assume the role of the police, administration or courts, or secure compliance through personal influence and fear.
The Court also referred to a separate alleged incident involving assault and intimidation of doctors and hospital staff in Palghar. While treating that incident as an independent matter requiring examination on its own facts, it considered it relevant to the broader insecurity expressed by medical professionals.
Preventive Detention To Be Examined Independently
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to evaluate whether the circumstances attracted the applicable preventive detention laws.
The direction requires an independent assessment by the competent authority of the statutory requirements and relevant material. The Court did not itself order preventive detention.
The bench also noted the possible statutory consequences under Section 13(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, concerning removal of a councillor for misconduct or disgraceful conduct. It treated those consequences as relevant to the overall assessment, without directing Mhatre’s removal from office.
Six-Month Trial Deadline And Witness Protection
Setting aside the High Court’s order insofar as it restored bail, the Supreme Court cancelled bail for all four accused and directed surrender before October 5, 2026.
If they fail to surrender, the trial court may cancel their bail bonds and take lawful steps to secure custody for the remainder of the trial. The accused may renew their bail applications before the appropriate forum if there is a material change in circumstances.
The Court preserved the High Court’s directions in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the impugned order, except its requirement to complete the trial within three months of framing charges. Instead, the Special Fast Track Court must endeavour to conclude proceedings expeditiously and within six months from presentation of the Supreme Court’s order.
The prosecution was directed to review its proposed witness list and, wherever legally permissible, avoid examining witnesses whose evidence is unnecessary for a just decision, without compromising fairness.
Recognising that the prosecution case substantially depends on doctors and hospital staff, the Court directed adequate protection for all material witnesses throughout the trial. The trial court must remain alert to threats, intimidation or coercion and order protective measures through the district administration or Superintendent of Police when required.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
