The Supreme Court of India has indicated its inclination to revoke the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is implicated in an assault case involving doctors and hospital staff in Dombivli. The case, cited as Ramesh Sukrya Mahatre vs High Court of Judicature at Bombay, saw the Bombay High Court initially staying the trial court’s bail order before lifting the stay and allowing Mhatre’s release under strict conditions on August 7.
Among these conditions, Mhatre was required to remain outside Maharashtra until the police filed a chargesheet. The High Court also imposed deadlines for the investigation and trial. Mhatre has since approached the Supreme Court to contest these directives.
A Supreme Court Bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Augustine George Masih, conducted a preliminary hearing on the petition. The Bench expressed its preliminary view that the bail should be canceled but decided to wait for the Maharashtra government’s formal plea seeking the revocation of Mhatre’s bail before making a final decision.
“While reviewing the case last evening, I was inclined to uphold the initial order staying Mhatre’s bail and annul the subsequent order granting his release,” the Bench observed. “However, we will await the State’s appeal for cancellation of bail,” it added.
The standing counsel for Maharashtra, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, informed the Court that a plea for bail cancellation would be filed later that day. Consequently, the court scheduled the case for further consideration on September 7, aligning it with the anticipated filing of the State’s appeal.
Ramesh Mhatre was arrested in July following allegations of assault on medical personnel at the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation’s Shastri Nagar Hospital on July 6, 2026. A sessions court granted him bail on July 14, prompting the Bombay High Court to take suo motu cognizance and stay the bail order during a special sitting on July 18. Subsequently, the High Court lifted the stay on August 7, releasing Mhatre with conditions and transferring the case to a fast-track court to expedite proceedings.
Representing Mhatre, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Bombay High Court’s intervention in the bail process was unwarranted. “There cannot be a condition that mandates filing the chargesheet within ten days,” Rohatgi contended, questioning the imposition of such a requirement.
In response, the Court justified the High Court’s actions, emphasizing the need to protect the medical community. “You cannot enter a hospital and assault people indiscriminately,” the Bench remarked, highlighting the trauma faced by the medical fraternity when subjected to mob violence.
Despite Rohatgi’s assertion that Mhatre harbored no personal grievances against the doctors, the Court referenced the widespread circulation of a video related to the incident, reinforcing its stance on the gravity of the allegations.
The Supreme Court has scheduled Mhatre’s petition for September 7, aligning it with the State’s anticipated appeal for bail cancellation, ensuring a coordinated hearing of both matters.
