Bombay High Court Criticizes Police Over Investigation
The Bombay High Court has expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing police investigation into the alleged assault on doctors by Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre. The case, officially titled High Court on its own motion v. Ramesh Mhatre & Ors., has prompted the court to direct a senior police official to take over the probe due to the lack of progress.
Judiciary’s Concerns and Directives
A division bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, highlighted the stagnation in the investigation, questioning the police’s actions in recent days. According to the court, there seemed to be no substantial investigative efforts in the critical time following the incident.
The court has also mandated protection for the complainant, a doctor, and has approved the recording of statements in Washim under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) procedure.
Details of the Incident
The altercation reportedly occurred at a KDMC-run hospital when Mhatre and his associates allegedly attacked two doctors and hospital staff following a disagreement over the treatment of a pregnant woman and her newborn. Due to the unavailability of NICU beds, doctors recommended transferring the patient to another facility. The patient’s family reportedly involved Mhatre, leading to the alleged assault on July 6.
In response, a case was filed against Mhatre and five others, leading to arrests on July 8. Charges included assaulting a public servant, causing voluntary harm, criminal intimidation, and unlawful assembly. Mhatre was initially granted bail by a sessions court on July 14, but the High Court intervened, staying the bail order after taking suo motu cognizance.
More Read
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
During Monday’s hearing, it was noted that Mhatre had been remanded to judicial custody, and there was potential for him to apply for regular bail. Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Mhatre, sought bail for his client, emphasizing Mhatre’s compliance with the legal process.
However, the court expressed concerns regarding Mhatre’s previous criminal record, pointing out several past offenses, including serious charges such as those under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court questioned whether such behavior was sending an appropriate message to society.
Broader Implications and Judicial Remarks
The bench also speculated on the broader implications of such attacks on professionals, warning of potential repercussions if such incidents were to extend to lawyers. Using a hypothetical scenario, the court underscored the gravity of the situation, likening it to a lawyer refusing a case due to lack of resources, only to face violent retaliation.
More Read
Furthermore, the court criticized the conduct of elected officials, highlighting the contradiction between their public service commitments and their actions. The bench noted the irony in representatives who seek public votes but resort to violence against the very public they pledge to serve.
