Supreme Court: While examining the legality of the Bombay High Court’s exercise of discretion in restoring bail to an elected municipal corporator and co-accused facing allegations of assaulting and intimidating doctors on duty at a municipal hospital, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that once the High Court had earlier stayed the bail orders upon forming a prima facie view of their serious infirmity, its subsequent departure without identifying any intervening circumstance and furnishing “cogent and discernible reasons” rendered the exercise of discretion unsustainable.
Considering the relevance of criminal antecedents, possibility of witness intimidation, influence of the accused and the wider impact upon the medical fraternity, the Court set aside the order restoring bail, cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed expeditious trial with adequate protection to material witnesses.
The Court further reiterated that an electoral mandate cannot become a substitute for the authority of law and that “no person, howsoever high the office held, can claim supremacy over the discipline of law”.
Factual Matrix
The instant appeal arose from an incident dated 6 July 2026 at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital, Dombivli, involving an alleged assault and verbal abuse of 3 doctors, including a lady doctor, who were on duty in the Labour Ward. Respondent 1, an elected corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 24, led by Respondents 2 to 4 had allegedly assaulted the doctors. The dispute allegedly originated over the shifting of a pregnant patient in labour. Respondent 1 was also alleged to have threatened the informant, thereby caused apprehension and fear and allegedly contributed to delay in registration of the FIR.
FIR was registered on 7 July 2026 at Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Thane City, for offences under Sections 121(1), 132, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2) and 352, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4, Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 (the Act). Respondents 2 to 4 were arrested in the early hours of 8 July 2026, while Respondent 1, after being served notice under Section 35(3), Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), was arrested later that day and admitted to Civil Hospital, Thane, purportedly on account of high blood pressure.
The accused were initially remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody. Despite the stage of investigation and the antecedents attributed to Respondent 1, the Magistrate enlarged him on bail on 14 July 2026. Respondents 2 to 4 were subsequently granted bail on the ground of parity.
The incident had a significant impact upon the victim doctors. The lady doctor resigned after suffering trauma, ignominy and insecurity, while the other victim doctors were stated to have refrained from attending duties owing to fear and apprehension. The incident also generated widespread public concern, prompting the Bombay High Court to take suo motu cognizance on 18 July 2026. The High Court stayed the Magistrate’s bail orders and directed Respondent 1 to surrender.
During the suo motu proceedings, the High Court impleaded the Indian Medical Association and the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, transferred the investigation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, Kalyan, and directed recording of the informant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS. It also directed the Municipal Corporation not to accept the resignations tendered by the victim doctors.
However, by order dated 7 August 2026, the High Court modified its earlier order and restored bail to Respondents 1 to 4, subject to stringent conditions. Among other conditions, they were directed to reside outside Maharashtra until commencement of trial, report thrice weekly at Anjuna Police Station in North Goa, surrender their passports and refrain from contacting witnesses. The High Court also issued extensive directions for an expedited trial.
Aggrieved, the accused challenged the conditions imposed upon them before the Supreme Court, but their special leave petitions (SLPs) were dismissed as withdrawn on 7 September 2026. Meanwhile, the State preferred the present appeal against the High Court’s order restoring bail.
Issue for Consideration
The Court noted that the question before it was not merely whether Respondents 1 to 4 ought to remain at liberty pending trial, but whether the favourable exercise of discretion, given the totality of the material available on record, suffers from perversity or non-application of mind.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court emphasised on the distinctive responsibility attached to the medical profession. Referring to the Suśruta Saṃhitā, the Court recalled the ancient principle that a physician’s treatment succeeds where the physician is respected.
“न स सिध्यति वैद्यो वा गृहे यस्य न पूज्यते। भवने पूज्यते वापि यस्य वैद्यः स सिध्यति॥”
The Court distinguished the doctor-patient relationship from an ordinary commercial or service relationship and stated that the relationship rests upon a degree of trust that cannot be measured merely by the professional service rendered or remuneration received. The Court referred to Seneca to underscore that while a physician may be paid for professional services, gratitude remains owed for the kindness and care which transcend the service itself.
The Court also explained the importance of an environment in which doctors can discharge their professional responsibilities, particularly in an emergency. It stated that an environment conducive to the discharge of medical responsibilities is not merely a matter of professional convenience but a condition necessary for proper delivery of medical care. A doctor cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent judgment while under apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion. Therefore, the safety and dignity of medical professionals are safeguards serving the larger public interest by ensuring that medical care is rendered with concentration, composure and judgment.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that this principle does not place medical professionals beyond scrutiny or accountability. Patients and their families remain entitled to question treatment, complain of negligence or delay, seek investigation into adverse outcomes and pursue remedies available in law.
Conduct of elected representatives and Rule of Law
The Court observed that “Democracy confers power through the ballot, but the exercise of that power remains subject to the discipline of law.” It expressed serious concern where persons occupying elected office begin to perceive the people’s mandate as “a source of personal authority and unbridled power” and assume for themselves a position to command, intimidate or enforce their own will.
The Court stated that an elected representative is entrusted with serving the public and strengthening institutions through which grievances are addressed and justice administered. Such a representative cannot assume the role of the police, administrator or Court. Personal influence used to secure compliance through fear or intimidation extends beyond the immediate victim and may erode public confidence in the Rule of Law.
The Court further stated that the concern in the present case was particularly grave because the persons allegedly subjected to such conduct were medical professionals. Doctors frequently discharge their duties in circumstances involving vulnerable patients, medical emergencies and decisions requiring instantaneous professional judgment and composure. An atmosphere of fear or insecurity in a healthcare institution can impair safe and effective medical care. Those protecting the health of others cannot themselves be compelled to discharge their professional responsibilities under fear, intimidation or apprehension.
Therefore, the Court held that any attempt to intimidate or assault medical professionals while they discharge duties in the interest of public health cannot be tolerated, whether committed by persons holding elected office or by anyone else. An elected representative bears a heightened responsibility to uphold the authority of law and reinforce public confidence in public institutions. Violence against medical professionals by such a person is particularly grave because it imperils the safety and dignity of those caring for patients and undermines the responsibility attached to public office to uphold the Rule of Law.
The Court further noted that, in the present case, after Respondents 1 to 4 had been granted bail, another incident of similar nature occurred in Palghar, where doctors and hospital staff were allegedly subjected to high-handedness and assault by political functionaries. The Court clarified that the Palghar incident constituted an independent cause of action on its own facts but held that it fortified the apprehension regarding the insecurity prevailing in the medical fraternity.
High Court’s inconsistent approach to bail
The Court found considerable force in the submission that the High Court’s orders dated 18 July 2026 and 7 August 2026 reflected an irreconcilable approach on key considerations governing bail. In its suo motu order dated 18 July 2026, the High Court had prima facie observed that the Magistrate could not have granted bail considering, among other matters, the nature of allegations and the brazen assault upon doctors while they were discharging their duties. On that basis, it stayed the bail orders.
However, while subsequently passing the impugned order, the High Court enlarged Respondents 1 to 4 on bail, principally taking into consideration that they had furnished details of residence outside Maharashtra, the period of custody undergone, substantial progress in investigation and the likelihood of completion of forensic analysis shortly. The Court found a critical omission, i.e., the impugned order did not identify any intervening circumstance capable of displacing the earlier prima facie view.
The Court held that once the High Court itself had found sufficient prima facie evidence to stay the bail orders and require Respondent 1 to surrender, any subsequent departure from that position necessarily required cogent and discernible reasons. The impugned order fell short of such an examination.
Criminal antecedents as relevant consideration in bail
The Court noted that criminal antecedents are a material consideration in bail, particularly where they indicate repeated criminal involvement and bear upon the likelihood of repetition, witness intimidation or interference with justice. Relying on Ash Mohd. v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, it reiterated that the period of custody must be weighed with the totality of circumstances and criminal antecedents, keeping societal concern alongside individual liberty.
In the present case, 18 criminal cases were attributed to Respondent 1, including serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Though 16 cases had ended in acquittal/discharge, the Court held that his antecedents and the possibility that his influence may have affected those proceedings “cannot be wholly ruled out”, particularly when material witnesses were yet to testify.
Elected Councillor’s Conduct
The Court considered Section 13(1)(a), Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which provides for removal of a Councillor upon being found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or disgraceful conduct during the current or immediately preceding term. The potential statutory consequences flowing from the alleged conduct were held to be relevant to the overall bail assessment.
The Court also considered the fact that Respondent 1 remained admitted in the prison ward of the District Civil Hospital, Thane, during police and judicial custody and thereby substantially avoided confinement in prison. Immediately after the release memo was issued pursuant to the bail order, he sought discharge from the hospital. Viewed cumulatively, the Court held that this conduct raised serious concern regarding whether the influence attached to his position had been utilised to circumvent the effective operation of the custodial process.
High Court erred in granting bail
The Court noted that the bail granted to Respondents 2 to 4 rested substantially upon parity with Respondent 1. The Court held that once the foundation upon which Respondent 1 had received the benefit of bail was found unsustainable, Respondents 2 to 4 could not claim an independent entitlement to bail merely on the ground of parity.
The Court found that the High Court had also failed to adequately consider the wider impact of the conduct attributed to Respondents 1 to 4 upon the medical fraternity. The material showed that the incident created such fear and apprehension amongst the victim doctors that they tendered resignations. This was not merely an incidental consequence of the allegations; it bore directly upon the apprehension of intimidation and the ability of medical professionals to perform their duties without fear or insecurity.
Although the respondents were already in judicial custody, the Court considered that the circumstances warranted an independent evaluation by the State Government, in accordance with law, as to whether the applicable preventive detention provisions were attracted. The competent authority was directed to examine the matter independently, keeping in view the statutory requirements and relevant circumstances, with the object of instilling a sense of security amongst medical professionals and ensuring that they could discharge their duties without fear or apprehension.
On the cumulative assessment, the Court held that the High Court had erred in exercising discretion in favour of Respondents 1 to 4. It had failed to adequately consider material circumstances, particularly the criminal antecedents, the influence allegedly wielded by Respondent 1 and the impact of the offence upon the medical fraternity, civil servants and society at large. The order restoring bail was therefore held unsustainable.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations did not grant any immunity to medical professionals from accountability. Any dereliction or negligence by medical personnel was to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and applicable guidelines.
Decision
Before concluding, the Court once against placed the case within the broader constitutional concern arising when persons occupying elected office resort to force, intimidation or extra-legal means against citizens or public functionaries. An elected office carries a corresponding obligation to respect the Rule of Law and institutional mechanisms for redressal of grievances. The electoral mandate cannot become a substitute for the authority of law, and “no person, howsoever high the office held, can claim supremacy over the discipline of law”.
Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court:
-
Set aside the High Court’s impugned order insofar as it restored bail to Respondents 1 to 4.
-
The bail granted to Respondents 1 to 4 stood cancelled and directed them to surrender before the trial court on or before 5 October 2026.
-
In the event of failure to surrender, authorised the trial court to cancel their bail bonds and take necessary steps to secure their custody. However, the respondents were left at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the appropriate forum if there was a material change in circumstances.
-
Preserved the High Court’s directions contained in paras 9 to 13 of the impugned order, except the direction requiring completion of trial within 3 months from framing of charges.
-
Instead, directed the Special Fast Track Court to endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within 6 months from the date of this order.
-
Directed the prosecution to carefully assess the proposed list of witnesses and, wherever legally permissible, curtail or dispense with examination of witnesses whose evidence was not essential for just adjudication, while preserving the fairness of the proceedings.
-
Considering that the prosecution substantially rested upon the testimony of doctors and hospital staff, directed the trial court to ensure adequate protection to all material witnesses throughout the trial.
-
Referred to Section 9, Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017 and Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615 and directed vigilance against threat, intimidation or coercion and appropriate protective measures wherever required.
[State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2053, decided on 28-9-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande-3259, AOR, Mr. Harshavardhan V. Ghadge, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., R. No. 1 Mr. Chirag J. Shah, Adv., Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv., Mr. Sameer Nangare, Adv., Mr. Anudatt Dubey, Adv., Mr. Shubh Jain, Adv., Mr. Nayan Dham, Adv., M/S. Tas Law, AOR, R. Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. Shubham Saigal, AOR, Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv., Ms. Shruti Priya Mishra, Adv., Ms. Bhavika Mehta, Adv., Ms. Ishani Kaushik, Adv., R. No. 5 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Panday, Adv., Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR, Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv., Ms. Saumya Saraswat, Adv., Ms. Astha Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv., Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Abhinay Ravindra Adsul, Adv., R. No. 6 Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR, Mr. Priyanshu Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Harsh Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Rithvik Mathur, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Yadav, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Adv., R. No. 8 Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR, Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv., Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv
