Thane Hospital Assault Case: Supreme Court Questions Bombay HC's Bail Intervention For Shiv Sena Corporator Ramesh Mhatre

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and AG Masih, however, took serious note of the allegations against Mhatre and directed the State to file a formal application seeking cancellation of bail. The matter will be heard on September 7.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddhartha Dave appeared for Mhatre.

SC questions manner of High Court intervention

At the outset, the Bench observed that the allegations were serious and emphasised Mhatre’s position as an elected public representative.

“This is a serious matter. You are a public elected person,” the Bench observed.

Rohatgi questioned the Bombay High Court’s subsequent intervention after bail had already been granted. He particularly objected to a condition requiring the filing of a charge sheet, arguing that such a condition could not form the basis for interfering with the bail order.

“It cannot be a condition that you file a charge sheet. How can there be a condition like this?” Rohatgi submitted.

He also argued that Mhatre had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the High Court interfered with the bail order. “I have already been granted bail and my bail is getting cancelled without hearing me,” Rohatgi submitted.

He questioned the timing and procedure adopted by the Division Bench, pointing out that the matter had been taken up on a Saturday afternoon. “What were they hearing me on a Saturday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon? Division Bench. How does a Division Bench act at 4:39?” he asked.

Rohatgi submitted that if the State believed the bail order was erroneous, it should have approached the Supreme Court through appropriate cancellation proceedings instead of seeking an ex parte intervention.

SC asks State to file cancellation plea

The Supreme Court indicated that the State should formally move an application seeking cancellation of bail.

“The State should have come in cancellation. You come in cancellation and cancel it,” the Bench said.

The State agreed to file the cancellation application on Tuesday itself.

“You will file it today?” the Bench asked.

The State responded in the affirmative.

“Have it on Monday,” the Bench directed.

The Bench also permitted the State to place relevant material on record, while Rohatgi said that Mhatre would file a short affidavit in response.

Court takes serious view of allegations against against doctors

While questioning the procedure adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was not brushing aside the allegations against Mhatre.

Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed concern over the alleged threats and assault involving members of the medical fraternity.

“Medical fraternity is threatened. Like this, who will come to the aid of the people at large?” Justice Mehta observed.

The Bench also referred to video footage of the alleged incident and indicated that it would examine the material carefully.

“Let us go one by one. See that video and then you come and argue this matter,” Justice Vikram Nath said.

The State also referred to allegations of repeated threats, with counsel claiming that there had been “hundred calls… hundred calls of threatening.”

The Bench indicated that the allegations and video evidence would have to be considered while examining the bail issue.

Rohatgi continued to challenge the manner in which the High Court had proceeded, maintaining that Mhatre should have received notice before the bail order was interfered with.

“You can’t act this way on a Saturday and not issue notice to me,” he submitted.

The Supreme Court, however, said it had already formed a prima facie view after examining the case materials.

“Last evening, while reading the file only, I made up my mind to pass the first order and consider the second order. You just check kindly,” the Bench observed.

The Court ultimately decided against a hurried determination and directed the parties to place their respective materials on record.

Justice Mehta said, “Take a couple of more weeks. Prepare the matter.”

The State will file its bail cancellation plea, while Mhatre will file his response. The matter has been listed for September 7.

Background

The proceedings arise from allegations concerning the assault of doctors and staff at a hospital operated by the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation.

Notably, in August the division bench of Bombay High Court had ordered the release of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre from judicial custody, subject to strict conditions. The bench had lifted the stay it had earlier placed on Mhatre's bail. The Court, however, directed that he must stay outside Maharashtra until the police file the chargesheet in the case. It also ordered that the trial be assigned to a fast track court and fixed strict timelines for the state to carry the criminal proceedings forward.