Supreme Court: Those Who Attack Doctors Don't Deserve Bail
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong disapproval of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting doctors at a municipal hospital in Maharashtra, stating that those who attack medical professionals do not deserve bail.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Augustine George Masih was hearing Mhatre's challenge to the stringent conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court while granting him bail in connection with the alleged assault at KDMC's Shastrinagar Hospital in Dombivli.
The bench observed, "These kinds of people don't deserve it (bail). They don't have respect for the medical fraternity. Imagine the trauma when a mob attacks. You go inside a hospital and hit any random person?" The court also indicated it was inclined to uphold the Bombay High Court's earlier intervention, which had stayed the bail granted by a trial court.
Justice Nath said the High Court was "very justified" in taking suo motu cognisance of the incident. The bench further remarked, "This is a case where you should have been put in detention. If medical personnel are threatened like this… Who will come to the aid of people at large? Absolutely not justified..."
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Mhatre, argued that the conditions imposed by the High Court were onerous and questioned whether a court could direct the filing of a chargesheet within 10 days. In response, the court referred to the viral video of the incident, noting that Mhatre was "caught in the act on video."
The case stems from an incident on July 6, when Mhatre and some of his supporters allegedly assaulted doctors and medical staff at the hospital following a dispute over the treatment and referral of a pregnant woman. CCTV footage showed the alleged assault, which triggered protests by medical professionals.
Mhatre was arrested and initially granted bail by a Kalyan magistrate on July 14. The Bombay High Court subsequently took suo motu cognisance, stayed the bail, and directed him to surrender. It later granted bail in August but imposed strict conditions, including that he remain outside Maharashtra until the trial begins.
The High Court had also ordered that a chargesheet be filed within 10 working days of receipt of forensic reports, framing of charges within five working days, and directed the trial court to endeavour to complete the trial within three months from the framing of charges. It had further ordered a fast-tracked trial and the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.
The Maharashtra government, represented by Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, indicated it was considering challenging the High Court's order granting bail. The Indian Medical Association, represented by Advocate-on-Record Prabhas Bajaj, also intervened to oppose the bail. The Supreme Court indicated it would wait for the state's petition seeking cancellation of bail.
The matter has been listed again for Monday.
In a separate development, the Maharashtra Government on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to grant an early hearing on its 2004 lawsuit concerning its border dispute with Karnataka over 865 Marathi-speaking villages and towns, including Belagavi. The government counsel stated that the pleadings were complete and the case should be listed for hearing now, arguing that the presence of Marathi-speaking people in Karnataka goes against the principle of linguistic reorganisation of states. The Chief Justice of India said he would examine the issue without giving an assurance of immediate listing.