Thane Doctors’ Assault Case: SC To Hear Maharashtra’s Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Ramesh Mhatre’s Bail On September 28

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukriya Mhatre in connection with the alleged assault of doctors and staff at a hospital run by the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mhatre, told the Court that the petitioner intended to withdraw the plea.

Meanwhile, counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra informed the Bench that the State had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking cancellation of Mhatre’s bail and that a diary number had been generated.

During the hearing, the Bench took note of another reported incident involving the assault of doctors.

“Mr. Rohatgi, things are going from bad to worse,” the Bench remarked.

The Court questioned how assaults on doctors inside their own chambers could be justified.

“How can this be justified that two go and assault them inside their chambers, beat them brutally?” Justice Vikram Nath asked.

The Bench observed that the issue was not merely one of law and order but also concerned public order.

Justice Sandeep Mehta further remarked that persons involved in such conduct should be detained, observing that their actions could not be viewed as an ordinary dispute.

“So they should be actually detained. That’s what our feeling is. These people don’t deserve normal…” Justice Mehta said.

At this stage, the accused reiterated his intention to withdraw the petition.

The Bench observed that the outcome appeared clear under the impugned order, remarking, “Under the impugned order, his fate is clear.”

When the petitioner sought to withdraw the plea, the Bench said it could not prevent such withdrawal but made clear that the larger issue warranted judicial attention.

“We cannot stop you from withdrawing your petition. We will allow you to withdraw,” the Bench said.

The Court, however, stressed the need for a wider deterrent message.

“Let the message go. Message needs to go,” the Bench observed.

The Court clarified that the message should not be confined only to those allegedly involved in the present incident, but should also act as a deterrent to others.

The Bench also took note of another similar incident reported from Palghar, which had received coverage in the social, print and electronic media.

The Court noted that the impugned order provided that there would be no further custody until the chargesheet was filed, and emphasised the need for the legal process to proceed while ensuring that such conduct does not go unchecked.

Maharashtra's Bail Cancellation Plea to be listed on September 28

In State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukriya Matre, Diary No. 540118 of 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice.

The AOR appearing for Ramesh Sukriya Matre, petitioner in Diary No. 50892 of 2026, was directed to serve a copy of the petition on the concerned parties on the same day.

The Court granted three weeks’ time to file a counter-affidavit.

The State’s SLP seeking cancellation of Mhatre’s bail has been directed to be listed on September 28, 2026.

In the other connected SLPs, counsel appearing for the respective parties stated that they had instructions to withdraw the petitions. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed those SLPs as withdrawn.

The Bench also dealt with an SLP taken up on board, noting the appearance of counsel for Respondent No. 6. Time was sought to file a counter-affidavit, which was granted for a period of three weeks.

The matter concerning the State’s challenge to Mhatre’s bail will now come up before the Supreme Court on September 28.