New Delhi, Oct 1 (PTI) A doctor cannot be expected to exercise sound and independent judgment while working under the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion, the Supreme Court has said while cancelling the bail of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre and three others, accused of assaulting and verbally abusing doctors at a municipal hospital in Maharashtra’s Thane district.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which cancelled the bail while setting aside a Bombay High Court order on September 28, said in its detailed order that physical violence, intimidation or coercion cannot become a means of expressing dissatisfaction with medical treatment, securing compliance with a demand or raising grievance for an adverse medical outcome.
“A doctor cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent judgment while labouring under the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion. The safety and dignity of the medical professional are consequently not matters of personal privilege. They are the safeguards which serve the larger public interest in ensuring that medical care is rendered with the concentration, composure and judgment that the profession demands,” it said.
The court directed Mhatre and three of his associates — Ramesh Laxman Pawar, Pramod alias Prakash Uddhav Nikam and Akshay Sharad Karande — who were also granted bail in the case to surrender before the trial court by October 5.
All four are accused of assaulting and verbally abusing three doctors, including a lady doctor, who were on duty in the labour ward of the Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli on July 6.
The bench said an elected representative is entrusted with the responsibility of serving the public and strengthening the institutions through which grievances are addressed and justice is administered.
“He/she cannot supplant those institutions by assuming the role of the police, the administrator or the court. The use of personal influence to secure compliance through fear or intimidation has consequences extending beyond the immediate victim and carries the potential to erode public confidence in the rule of law itself,” it said.
The court said since the case depends on the testimony of doctors and hospital staff, the trial court must ensure that all material witnesses are afforded adequate protection throughout the trial under the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017.
It said the trial court must remain vigilant to any apprehension of threat, intimidation or coercion and, wherever the circumstances so warrant, pass appropriate orders directing the district administration or the superintendent of police to extend requisite protective measures, so as to ensure that the witnesses are able to depose freely and without fear or external influence.
The bench, however, clarified that in the event of any material change in circumstances, the accused would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before an appropriate forum.
In the 36-page order, the bench detailed the antecedents of Mhatre and said the courts below have failed to accord due consideration to the criminal history of the accused, against whom 18 cases are stated to have been registered, including those involving serious offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
“Such antecedents were a material circumstance bearing upon the exercise of discretion in the matter of bail and could not have been brushed aside without due consideration,” it said.
The court frowned upon Mhatre’s continued stay in the prison ward of the district civil hospital, Thane, throughout his police custody from July 10 to July 13 and thereafter, during his judicial custody, thereby substantially avoiding confinement in prison.
“Significantly, immediately upon issuance of the release memo pursuant to the order granting bail on July 15, 2026, he sought discharge from the hospital. The aforesaid conduct, viewed in its entirety, raises a serious concern regarding the manner in which the influence attached to his position was utilised to circumvent the effective operation of the custodial process,” it said.
The bench said the high court, while restoring the order granting bail to the accused, did not accord due consideration to the wider impact of their conduct upon the medical fraternity.
“The material on record indicates that the incident had caused such fear and apprehension amongst the victim doctors that they were constrained to tender their resignations. This circumstance was not merely incidental to the individual allegations; it was directly relevant to the apprehension of intimidation and the ability of medical professionals to discharge their duties without fear or insecurity,” it underscored.
It said the effect of the prejudicial conduct of the accused upon the functioning of the healthcare institution and the confidence of medical professionals, therefore, warranted due consideration while exercising discretion in the matter of bail.
The court directed the Maharashtra government to evaluate the circumstances as to whether the provisions of the applicable preventive-detention laws are attracted against Mhatre and his associates involved in the case so as to instil a sense of security and confidence amongst the medical fraternity.
The high court granted bail to Mhatre on August 7 and ordered that the trial be fast-tracked and completed in a time-bound manner. PTI MNL RC
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.