The Supreme Court said it was inclined to cancel the bail of a Shiv Sena corporator accused of assaulting Thane doctors

Image is for representational purposes only. | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 1, 2026) said it was inclined to revoke the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting three city doctors in Thane, noting that those who “have no respect for the medical fraternity” should not be granted bail. However, the court also said it would wait for the state government’s request to cancel his bail before issuing a formal order.

Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Augustine George Masih heard Mr Mhatre’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s July 18 order suspending the bail granted to him, as well as its August 7 order imposing strict conditions on his release, including that he stay out of Maharashtra pending trial.

The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings after the trial court granted bail to Mr. Mhatra and his associates and expressed concern over the alleged attack on the doctor.

Mhatre’s lawyer questions HC’s intervention

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr. Mhatre, argued that the Supreme Court had erred in interfering with the trial court’s bail order and questioned its decision to initiate suo motu proceedings against the grant of bail. He also objected to the manner of her initial intervention, pointing out that the bail order was delayed without Mr Mhatre being given an opportunity to be heard.

“I can understand that the court will act. But you cannot behave like this… I was not served any notice. I was already granted bail and it was suspended without hearing me,” he added.

However, the Bench supported the High Court’s intervention and took a serious stand against the alleged attack on the health workers.

“This is a case where the High Court was fully entitled to take suo motu cognizance and set aside the bail order… The medical fraternity has been threatened in this way. Absolutely unwarranted. You have no respect for the medical fraternity. You cannot imagine the trauma a person faces when a mob attacks,” the Bench observed, adding that it was inclined to grant the High Court an earlier stay order on Mr. Bahatil.

The bench also noted that the alleged assault was captured on video and that the footage had gone viral.

“Yesterday evening, when I read the file, I decided to uphold the first order (stay on bail) and set aside the second order (grant bail),” Justice Nath observed.

Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, informed the court that the state would file a special leave application on the same day challenging the Supreme Court’s August 7 order. The Bench, therefore, ordered that the State’s application, once filed, be listed along with Mr. Mhatre’s petition on September 7.

The case stems from a July 6 incident in which Mr. Mhatre and others allegedly assaulted three doctors at the Shastri Nagar Hospital in Dombivli in Thane district, which is run by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation. The alleged attack followed a recommendation by doctors to move the pregnant woman to another facility because all the beds in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were occupied.

Strict bail conditions

After the High Court set aside their bail on July 18, Mr. Mhatre and the other accused surrendered the next day and were lodged in the Aadharwadi Jail in Kalyan. However, on August 7, the high court granted bail to Mr. Mhatra and some other accused under strict conditions.

The Supreme Court ordered them to stay out of Maharashtra pending trial, while allowing them to enter the state to face charges. They were also ordered to stay away from the complaining doctors.

Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad also took a serious view of the allegations against Mr. Mhatra as an elected representative in their August 7 order.

“In a democratic government, the principle applies that an elected representative is by the people and for the people. If an elected representative is accused of attacking his own voters, such a situation will necessarily disrupt the structure of democracy,” the Supreme Court noted.

Published – 01 Sep 2026 21:00 IST